This is interesting: transgender rapist to be moved to women’s prison
A reader sent me this story from the U.K.: Transsexual prisoner wins right to be in female prison. That’s from the Torygraph — right-wing, I know, but at least it’s preferable to the sleazy red tops. Cliff Notes version:
The prisoner, who cannot be identified, won a human rights battle against Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, that keeping her in a male prison was a violation.
Lawyers for the 27-year-old inmate, who is still at the preoperative stage, described her as a “woman trapped inside a man’s body” and argued keeping her among men was preventing her from having a full sex change.
…
The killer, known as “A”, is currently serving life for the manslaughter of a boyfriend and the attempted rape of a female shop assistant, both committed while she was man.
Although born a man, she had been undergoing the process of gender reassignment, and in 2006 was granted a certificate under the 2004 Gender Recognition Act which required her to be recognised as a woman “for all purposes”.
Her birth certificate has been changed to say she is a female, while hair on her face and legs has been permanently removed by laser and she has developed breasts after hormone treatment.
She is allowed to shower in private, launder her female clothing herself and has access to cosmetics.
However, she was forbidden from wearing skirts or blouses, or more than “subtle” make-up, at the men’s prison where she was being held on a “vulnerable prisoners” wing.
The court heard that in order to complete her change to full womanhood, she must live for a time as a woman and that could only be achieved if she was moved to a female jail.
…
She was originally convicted of manslaughter in 2001 and jailed for five years after smothering her boyfriend with a pillow and strangling him with a pair of tights.
She says that, although at first accepting of her gender dysphoria, he moved to hostility when she became increasingly feminised and she lost control after a row.
Less than a week after her release on license two years later, “A” attacked a shop assistant, forcing her into a back room, tied her up with a suspender belt and tried to rape her.
She was given a life sentence for that offence under a “two strikes” system following the manslaughter conviction.
Her legal team said the attempted rape was closely linked to her obsession with becoming a woman and her intense frustration at the authorities’ refusal to help her qualify for full gender reassignment surgery.
In July 2007, the Parole Board refused her release because “the risk to life and limb” were too high.
Phillipa Kaufman, A’s barrister, said: “So long as she stays in the male estate, she has no hope of realising her desire to become fully a woman.
“There is absolutely no security reason why she should be kept where she is. If she remains in the male estate, she is looking at the bleakest future in terms of what matters to her.
“What she would have in the female estate is hope; hope that she will be able to live in role and persuade her doctors that she should have gender reassignment surgery.”
Huh. So, what do we think about this?
My initial reaction is that the only real stumbling block here is the attempted rape. Take that away, and what you have is a male-to-female transgender woman who killed her boyfriend. For all intents and purposes, she’s living life as a woman. (She even has a certificate!) Women’s prison seems to make sense.
The attempted rape, though, is…troubling. Yeah, I think I’ll go with “troubling.” The prisoner is in jail for the attempted rape of a woman. She’s a rapist — a rapist with a penis. And she still has that penis. The Torygraph says the attempted rape occurred “while she was a man,” but reading carefully, it’s clear that she was already identifying as a woman at the time. All that’s changed since then is that she’s had more hormone treatments and gotten that certificate. But she was a self-identified woman-with-a-penis at the time of the attempted rape, and that’s what she is today.
Now, as a general rule, people with penises are excluded from women’s prisons because of the risk of rape. And this prisoner is, undoubtedly, a would-be rapist. With a penis.
On the other hand! Isn’t there such a thing as lesbian rape? Yes, there is. There are women who rape other women (with objects or whatever). And isn’t it entirely possible, even likely, that there are some women already in the women’s prison who fit this bill? Yes, I’d say so.
This is a weird case. I’m no expert on trans issues, and until now I don’t know that I’ve ever even considered a possibility like this. What do people think?
***
Update: Here’s the story in the Grundian as well. Looks like it’s also being picked up by the AP, so perhaps soon we’ll have our own trashy American coverage.
***
Update again! Now this is interesting: someone just emailed me this BBC story from 2003. Apparently this is prisoner A, as reported at the time of the attempted rape:
Transsexual jailed for rape attempt
A transsexual who said he tried to rape a woman so he could go to prison and have a sex change operation has been jailed for life.
Karen Louise Lawson - who used to be called Mark John Jones - committed the attack in a transsexuals’ shop in Greater Manchester.
Bolton Crown Court heard the 21-year-old, of no fixed abode, had only stopped his assault when he failed to get an erection.
Lawson, who pleaded guilty to attempted rape, was jailed for life by the judge, who ruled his second violent crime was not an exceptional case.
He had committed the attempted rape just days after being freed on licence after serving half of a five-year sentence for manslaughter in a male young offenders institution.
In 2001, when he was aged 18, he had admitted strangling his former lover when he refused to pay for Lawson’s sex change operation.
During the recent case, the jury was told Lawson had gone into Transformations, in Prestwich, in October 2002 and attacked a woman.
He tried to rape her but was unable to get an erection.
Lawson then went on the run but handed himself in to police in Bexleyheath, Kent, later that month.
Judge Derwent Hope, sentencing him to life in prison, said his victim had told police she feared for her life during the attack.
He told Lawson, who was referred to as she throughout the hearing: “Until you have full and proper treatment, I consider you to be potentially an extremely serious risk to any member of the public you associate with, a risk that could easily lead to that person’s death.”
Judge Hope also said Lawson’s name would be put on to the sex offenders’ register for the rest of his life.
A decision on when he would be suitable for parole would be left to the Home Secretary, he added.
I must say, this changes my assessment somewhat. The person is unstable and dangerous, but I would not call him/her a “would-be rapist” as one might normally use that term to refer to a man.
132 Responses to “This is interesting: transgender rapist to be moved to women’s prison”
-
Lance says:
LOVE — ABSOLUTELY LOVE — the new logo! Beautiful visual.
September 4th, 2009 at 10:34 pm EST -
Violet says:
Thank you, Lance. The alpacas like it too.
-
Adrienne in CA says:
Well, it was an attempted rape, so maybe the penis doesn’t work on women? You’d think they could test for that somehow. With her propensity to snap, she should be watched wherever she is.
*****A
-
Lance says:
As far as this transgender stuff goes, this has and always will be irritating to me on so many levels, not the least of which is because it offends my separatist self. And this seems to be a PRIME example of why it’s troubling, as you say. If you don’t like gender roles, than fight to overcome them in patriarchy…don’t genitally mutilate yourself and expect me to believe that you are now a woman. I still think Janice Raymond has it right in her book The Transexual Empire.
-
Violet says:
I still think Janice Raymond has it right in her book The Transexual Empire.
But everything I’ve heard from transsexuals says that Janice Raymond had it wrong. I’ve never encountered anyone on the trans side of things who thinks the Raymond scenario of men-becoming-women-to-take-us-over was anything other than absurd.
I can understand how it might have looked that way to Raymond in the 70s, when transsexualism was still kind of a newish thing on the cultural horizon and feminists were still in early days of trying to smash gender roles. But decades later, it seems pretty clear that she had misread the situation.
I don’t think gender and sexual identity issues are well understood at all. But it does seem that some people really have a strong sense of belonging to the other team, and that this phenomenon is not just a product of modern gender definitions. It’s found all over the world and in many ancient societies (particularly in the Americas). I suspect it’s a natural variation in the human psyche, like homosexuality.
-
Unree says:
I guess that if I were the UK Ministry of Justice I would permit A to transfer to a women’s prison with a strict warning that if she is ever even accused of penis-wielding sexual assault, off she goes to the “male estate” as they seem to call it.
It’s, um, troubling to give this much power to wardens and fellow inmates, but A has already committed two violent crimes. I would think that even staunch transgender activists would agree that a prisoner with a male body isn’t entitled to transfer to a women’s prison simply by declaring that he has transitioned into a woman. The certificate is well and good, but if you are hurting other people with the phenotype you have, you don’t get to claim that it isn’t the real you.
-
K.A. says:
Question: How could a man rape a woman—commit this heinous HATE CRIME against a woman—and still expect to be housed with women, confident the uber-misogynist UK courts would agree?
Answer: his male entitlement!
The difference between a man and a woman is not between their legs, but between their ears, and the most relevant difference there happens after birth.
How could a bunch of feminist women be so nonchalant instead of immediately horrified by this overt violation of imprisoned women’s human rights is a better question.
-
dances says:
“Her legal team said the attempted rape was closely linked to her obsession with becoming a woman and her intense frustration at the authorities’ refusal to help her qualify for full gender reassignment surgery.”
—————-
Wha? Huh??Lance, I don’t view M-F as ‘women”, nor F-M as “men”. I see them as MF transsexuals, or FM transsexuals. They have life experiences unique and apart from men and women born of women.
.02 cents
-
sister of ye says:
Sorry. I can’t see how s/he is discriminated against by not being allowed to wear skirts and blouses and heavier makeup. Seriously, is that supposed to be the definition of womanhood? As far as I know, fashion styles are a matter of social convention, not encoded in DNA.
If s/he wanted to be free to life his/her life as s/he pleases, s/he shouldn’t have killed one person and tried to rape another. Gender confusion is no excuse for either. Guy’s got a lot deeper problems than a wardrobe.
-
Violet says:
How could a bunch of feminist women be so nonchalant instead of immediately horrified by this overt violation of imprisoned women’s human rights is a better question.
Nonchalant? Who’s nonchalant? I think what’s important is to carefully consider the issues and the safety and rights of everyone involved. All of these inmates are convicted criminals — the prisoner A, the women, the men — but they all are human beings and have basic rights. They should be safe and housed appropriately.
Unfortunately, I’m not sure this prisoner A really belongs anywhere. From what I’ve read, she’s not safe at the men’s prison except under special guard (no surprise there); she won’t be safe at the women’s prison, either, according to the wardens; and her history makes me fear for the women she’ll be imprisoned with.
-
octogalore says:
Interesting issue. My thoughts sync up with your analysis of it. The rape is basically the only issue complicating this, and then the fact that women can rape women etc. There are differences in terms of relative strength depending on where the prisoner is in her transition and hormonal level, but even that argument isn’t solid given the differences in relative strength among women.
I do not, BTW, agree with Raymond’s theory and would much prefer to listen to transgender women and men and their perspectives directly.
I guess I’d have to go with the solution of having her in the women’s prison under close scrutiny (but no more than that of cisgender rapists of women within that facility), with opportunities to resume a normal occupance with good behavior.
-
K.A. says:
There seems to be a fear of expressing outrage on women’s behalf if it’s a transwoman issue, lest you be considered “transphobic” for being rightfully pissed off, that’s all. I think outrage is the only proper response, even though I agree with your conclusion:
Unfortunately, I’m not sure this prisoner A really belongs anywhere.
This is my conclusion too, for the same reasons. I mean, there are transsexual women who would be fine in the women’s prison, but it’s nearly impossible to tease out which ones do pose a threat or would create a hostile/intimidating environment (e.g., by being a misogynist fetishist or whatever). You can’t base it solely on their criminal history, but you can’t tease out who is who. It seems wrong to put them in total isolation in either prison though (presuming they didn’t commit an offense that could be met with time in isolation), because that’s cruel and unusual punishment.
Then there is the whole, wow, the prison system in general is totally fucked and needs to be overhauled. Women are commonly sexually abused by the guards as it is, so no wonder the courts pay as little mind about how this situation will affect the women.
-
K.A. says:
It’s not just the rape complicating the issue, it’s his male entitlement. That is always going to be a part of him/her. You don’t “hormonify” that away. That, to me, is the most important difference between this rapist the female prisoners. That’s reason enough to keep her elsewhere.
-
Violet says:
I just updated the post with more info. Heh. I’m going to be like Drudge — DEVELOPING…
-
yttik says:
“…her intense frustration at the authorities’ refusal to help her qualify for full gender reassignment surgery…”
Ahh, now see? Rationed care. The “evils” of socialized medicine. :)
-
Zoe Brain says:
Surely providing her with sex reassignment surgery, which involves removing the testes and turning an “outie” into an “innie” would reduce the rape concerns?
This person is a violent sociopath, and a danger to society regardless of her somatic form. But she’s been effectively chemically castrated by the hormones - the Hormone Replacement Therapy regime in the UK includes cyproterone acetate, which is also used in lower doses to chemically castrate rapists. This is only discontinued after the testes have been removed, and in those with overactive adrenals, continued even then.
Personally, from the evidence I’m surprised she isn’t in the Broadmoor prison for the criminally insane. Not because she’s transsexual, but because the suffering caused by transsexuality has turned an unstable and selfish personality into a dangerous sociopath.
As regards what Transsexuality is, it’s a congenital intersex condition. A mainly feminised brain in an otherwise mainly masculinised body. I won’t go into the details of which part of the lymbic nucleus, hypothalamus etc are affected, nor the other intersex conditions in the rest of the body that are commonly found with it. “Female brain in a male body” is a gross oversimplification, but close enough.
I recommend Dr Veronica Drantz’ presentation on the subject, complete with anatomical slides. The differences are marked.
To understand why a partly feminised brain inevitably leads to a female gender identity, see Dr Milton Diamond’s Biased-Interaction theory of psychosexual development: ‘how does one know if one is male or female?’. Just Google to find this online.
All of this stuff is pure biology, not a social construct (unlike gender roles, which are, mainly) nor a psychiatric condition. Nor a plot by the Patriarchy to colonise women’s space for that matter. For one thing, between 1/4 and 1/2 of trans people are male - male brain in female body, if you like. For another, a significant number of these “FtoM”s changed naturally from looking female at birth to looking male later, due to either 5alpha-reductase-2 deficiency or 17beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-3 deficiency.
-
Swannie says:
This really sounds as if along with the transgender issues, are narcissist and sociopath/antisocial personality disorders .
So this person belongs in a locked mental institution.
Unfortuantely , these days they call them “prisons”.
Hopesfully they can find this person a place on some kind of segregated beahvioral protected unit , for the protection of the women. -
Bella Donna says:
To me, the “I was trying to get back in prison because I was frustrated” defense for assault and attempted rape shows how very little it bothers A to abuse women.
Actually A seems to think that violent assault is justifiable in any case where one is under a good deal of stress.
I don’t hear any taking of responsibility, and not a lot of remorse.
And now A gets exactly what s/he wants, by getting hormone therapy and being transferred to woman’s prison.
This is not a safe individual to be around anybody, so from my point of view you should be more concerned with the people who will be trapped with A. In other words, the men will be able to defend themselves better then the women in prison, so A should stay with the men.
I’ve gotten worn out on hearing “but if he goes to prison, he will be raped!!!” theory of not sending violent criminals to where they belong.
I once attended a trial where the defendant had a history file about 12 inches thick of restraining orders, domestic violence, assault, stalking, harassment of women, was currently on trial for beating up, then stalking his current ex-girlfriend, got 3 months in a group home, because “he was physically fragile” and would be “an easy target in jail”
-
yttik says:
Sick snark, but if he needs to relate to what it is like to live as a woman, being kept in a male prison as a perpetual target for misogynistic men should do the trick.
-
gxm17 says:
yttik, as usual you are right on.
-
seattlegal says:
Transsexual jailed for rape attempt
A transsexual who said he tried to rape a woman so he could go to prison and have a sex change operation has been jailed for life.
Um, hello? Is there any reason to believe that this person won’t try to rape someone else in order to speed the castration process along? This person has killed once and attempted to rape once in a tantrum over not being able to get castrated fast enough. Gee, after two and a half years, this person wasted no time to take an opportunity to throw another violent tantrum? It seems this person was perfectly capable of not throwing a violent tantrum for two and a half years while in prison for murder. So what was the trigger? Being around women?
This person doesn’t deserve to be a woman, imo…
-
Anna Belle says:
It hurt me to read this. I appreciate that Dr. Socks honestly struggled with the issue, but the final analysis I found disappointing.
When I read about this story a few days ago on another feminist blog that showed compassion for “A,” I was immediately struck by the blindness with regard to male entitlement. My heart immediately went out to the women of the prison “A” will be sent to, who will be told in no uncertain terms that “A’s” male entitlement to gender reassignment surgery trumps their entitlement to a sense of security while being held by the state. Isn’t this the essence of what we fight so hard against?
“A’s” male entitlement is evident in his manifest behaviors, and this case exposes a particular problem with acceptance of transgendered culture by feminist culture. Even if one is to think that gender reassignment is a civil rights issue (I reject that notion myself), what is one to do with the reality that the vast majority of candidates seeking such surgery are men who have been subject to a lifetime of patriarchal training as the oppressing class? It’s not like that training goes away when the penis is transformed into a vagina.
“A” has demonstrated clearly that he is willing to use the training he received to punish or manipulate people into recognizing and bringing about his entitlement. He murdered his lover, a gay man, and the value of that life (probably because it was not a straight, white, male life) was 2 and a half years. He murdered him clearly to punish him for not paying for his entitlement. He then attacks a woman, because such is his training, that women are suitable targets. In this he is attempting to manipulate the state into recognizing and paying for his entitlement, which the state is all too willing to do, especially since the state prefers male entitlement over female entitlement. He isn’t even trying to get anything from the woman; he is merely using her as so many men use women, because it is acceptable and safer to do so since men can often easily overpower women.
The only guiltless party here is the assaulted woman. How can there be any doubt that at least some of the women in prison will be victimized when they are told that their security means nothing when it comes to a man being able to create his identity? Keep in mind that some of those women are, no doubt, in prison for non-violent crimes, such as prostitution or passing bad checks. How do you think they will feel when they are told this man with his violent past, will be coming to be housed, penis and all, in their population? How can the state guarantee that this man will not use his male training in life to attack and/or use another female, a defenseless, imprisoned female specifically, next time he wants something he can’t get through honest means?
That’s what hurt me so much reading this. There seemed to be very little concern in the post and from some commenters about those born-female inmates who also have a right to protection, and who are already disadvantaged by their lifetime of patriarchal training as the oppressed class. There is more sympathy expressed for the novelty of this man’s transgendered status than there is for the women in the prison, and no discussion whatsoever of the unique patriarchal constraints placed on such women in prison, specifically in terms of their defenselessness. The most troubling implication (not overtly stated) of all was that “A’s” attacks on other humans were understandable in light of his identity issues.
I guess we really are the fish and patriarchy is the water.
-
Sameol says:
I don’t understand why this person isn’t a “would-be rapist.” that sort of reminds me of gay men who touch and grope women and brush it off on grounds that they’re not getting sexual gratification from it. Regardless of what’s going on in the abuser’s side, it doesn’t change the fact that the victim is experiencing an assault. If you’re saying he doesn’t have a compulsion to rape, isn’t rape about power and control? This is the second time we’re aware of that he violently attacked someone due to a sense of entitlement and a lack of acknowledgement of the humanity of others. Who’s to say she doesn’t have other sources of entitled rage? I’m trying and failing to see why this behavior is more worthy of sympathy than the gym hate crime killer.
-
LabRat says:
This individual’s normal response to frustration is violence, which they see as justified because their desires were unfulfilled. I don’t really care if they’re male or female, gender dysphoria does not head the list of their problems and keeping others safe from such an individual is the priority. Easier to do in a men’s prison than women’s- it was this person’s choice to murder and rape, and if it turns out this is not actually the best route to becoming a fulfilled transwoman, then too bad.
-
Tabby Lavalamp says:
Putting aside this case where there are no easy answers, after reading the comments my heart goes out to transsexuals more than ever.
Ostracized by men.
Ostracized by women.
Ostracized by misogynists.
Ostracized by feminists.
Ostracized by right-wingers.
Ostracized by left-wingers.
It’s no wonder so many of them end up abusing drugs and committing suicide. These are human beings who have been damned by biology since birth and everywhere they turn, people are looking at them as freaks.
When a homophobe calls sexual orientation a choice, the question that must follow is, “Why would someone choose to be something that could cost them their family, their jobs, their very lives. Why do so many kill themselves after years of struggle because they can’t overcome this ‘choice’ that makes them loathe who they are?”
Now I’m reading all this talk about male entitlement, yet they are not just giving that entitlement up by doing what they feel they must, they are moving even further down the ladder than women born women.
Frankly, because of her actions, I feel this prisoner needs to be either kept in isolation or moved to a high security mental health hospital, but that has nothing to do with her gender dysphoria but because of the nature and rational behind her crimes.
The loathing I’m seeing in some of the comments for an entire class of human being troubles me, and it troubles me deeply. -
K.A. says:
They are not giving up male entitlement, they are giving up male privilege–a distinction so important that only someone with a raging case of male entitlement could dismiss them as the same thing.
-
seattlegal says:
#24 Tabby Lavalamp says:
Putting aside this case where there are no easy answers, after reading the comments my heart goes out to transsexuals more than ever.
Ostracized by men.
Ostracized by women.
Ostracized by misogynists.
Ostracized by feminists.
Ostracized by right-wingers.
Ostracized by left-wingers.This person is being ostracized for being a murderer and a rapist. There wouldn’t be a problem if this person hadn’t murdered his boyfriend and tried to rape a woman.
-
Violet says:
But she’s been effectively chemically castrated by the hormones - the Hormone Replacement Therapy regime in the UK includes cyproterone acetate, which is also used in lower doses to chemically castrate rapists.
I wondered about this. I thought there might be a hormone treatment in the offing that A thought she might trigger, hence the attempted rape. Which she was unable to complete.
I don’t understand why this person isn’t a “would-be rapist.”
What I mean is that I don’t see her as a male who preys on women, the way most rapists do. It’s pretty clear A has no desire or even ability to rape women; she was just trying to get attention.
Of course that doesn’t excuse it; A is very dangerous and the judge was right to put her in jail.
-
yttik says:
About murdering her boyfriend:
“She says that, although at first accepting of her gender dysphoria, he moved to hostility when she became increasingly feminised….”
Oh I empathize plenty. As she became more and more female, her boyfriend became more and more hostile. Tell me about it. Welcome to the world of women.
It was male privilege that led this man to believe that as a woman she should be entitled to what? Non-hostility? Respect??! The difference being, most of us who were born women have learned to adapt to abuse and hostility because after all, you can’t just go around smothering everybody. However, the idea that you are entitled to kill or abuse people who you feel don’t show you the proper respect, is a distinctly male trait.
-
Suzie says:
I think A is still a rapist because she could have chosen another crime to get back in prison, including one that didn’t involve traumatizing another person. I’m hesitant to even use the term “would-be” because she did sexually assault the victim, even though she was unable to penetrate her with her penis.
I think she’s a danger wherever she is, especially if she’s strong, as are other rapist/sociopaths. I also think she’s in danger in the women’s prison because some inmates will perceive her as a male rapist, and there are lots of women who don’t like male rapists.
Tabby, some radical feminists lash out at some transwomen, not because they are trans, but because they are seen as men berating women for not treating them better, among other things.
Do you think that transwomen are more oppressed than ciswomen?
I think women (cis and trans) have a right to question what some transwomen say about biology = destiny. This has kept women down for millennia.
I’d blog about it but I’m still recovering from the one I did several weeks ago, in which transwomen trashed me.
-
Violet says:
There seemed to be very little concern in the post and from some commenters about those born-female inmates who also have a right to protection, and who are already disadvantaged by their lifetime of patriarchal training as the oppressed class. There is more sympathy expressed for the novelty of this man’s transgendered status than there is for the women in the prison, and no discussion whatsoever of the unique patriarchal constraints placed on such women in prison, specifically in terms of their defenselessness.
How strange you would say this, since the entire premise of the post is that A’s past makes her potentially dangerous to women inmates, and that penis-bearers are excluded precisely because of the risk of rape. There was no other reason to even write the post.
-
Violet says:
It was male privilege that led this man to believe that as a woman she should be entitled to what? Non-hostility? Respect??! The difference being, most of us who were born women have learned to adapt to abuse and hostility because after all, you can’t just go around smothering everybody. However, the idea that you are entitled to kill or abuse people who you feel don’t show you the proper respect, is a distinctly male trait.
There are no women killers? No women assholes? And all men are brimming over with male entitlement?
You know, the patriarchy is real and systematic male entitlement is a genuine phenomenon. I mean, hey, check my archives. But surely we can drop the sweeping generalizations long enough to notice that individuals, both male and female, are all situated individually.
How do any of you know that A is reeking with male entitlement? Unless you can say that no woman has never killed or raped, and that only males react with violence to frustration, then you’re not making sense.
As for A’s alleged sense of male privilege, what I’ve read about this person’s life (google the name) is not pretty. Abused by her parents as a child and teenager, apparently forced to have demeaning tattoos on her body as punishment for trying to live as a female. The picture is of a hellish, desperate life.
-
sister of ye says:
after reading the comments my heart goes out to transsexuals more than ever.
Oh, for crying out loud! Unless you’re assuming that all transexuals are violent latent killers and rapists, or that they should be allowed to be in order to accomplish their transformations, extending the criticism here of this particular sick person to a condemnation of all transexuals is a huge assumption on your part.
From the facts related, it sounds like this particular narcisstic, conscienceless man developed an obsession with a sex-change as the means of resolving whatever is going thru his head. Is he a “true transexual”? I have no idea. But after he chose to kill and rape two innocent people, I don’t really care.
My suggestion is that the state pay for his sex-change, then ship him to, say, Afghanistan or Saudia Arabia, where he can experience the joys of womanhood in all its glory.
-
yttik says:
“But surely we can drop the sweeping generalizations long enough to notice that individuals, both male and female, are all situated individually.”
Not really, not in light of the fact that 90% of all violent crimes, murders, rapes, wars, are committed by men. The fact that you might also stumble upon one female rapist out of 500 male ones does not mean all things are equal.
Men are raised in this society from day one with a sense of entitlement and it is reinforced all of their lives. Some may not abuse it, but it always there. To suggest that a transexual who has actually committed murder and attempted rape is not reeking of male entitlement makes no sense. Apparently he thought nothing of tying up a shop girl and making her fear for her life for his own personal gratification, in this case, his desire for a sex change operation. That reeks of a sense of male entitlement. She’s not even a person in his eyes, she’s simply a vessel that will get him what he wants.
-
Tabby Lavalamp says:
They are not giving up male entitlement, they are giving up male privilege–a distinction so important that only someone with a raging case of male entitlement could dismiss them as the same thing.
Or someone who is still learning the language of feminist thought, but thank you for being for being so patronizing and hostile about that.
This person is being ostracized for being a murderer and a rapist.
Oh, for crying out loud! Unless you’re assuming that all transexuals are violent latent killers and rapists, or that they should be allowed to be in order to accomplish their transformations, extending the criticism here of this particular sick person to a condemnation of all transexuals is a huge assumption on your part.
You’d think I hadn’t said, “Putting aside this case,” trying to make it clear I wasn’t talking about A but about transsexuals in general, and look back through the comments. There is a lot of criticism that isn’t just aimed at one criminal but at an entire group of people.
If you can’t see that, you aren’t reading the comments (and please note, I’m not saying all the comments).Do you think that transwomen are more oppressed than ciswomen?
Do you know why I’m not going to answer this question? Because it’s a pointless one. Nobody who is oppressed benefit when we start playing the “who’s more oppressed game”. Look at what happened back during the American primaries when the same thing happened comparing women and African-Americans.
All it does is pit one oppressed group against another, and frankly we need to get past that crap. I’m not going to try to get out from under my oppression at the expense of another group. Whether it’s people of colour, anyone on the LGBT spectrum, any human being period, I refuse to participate in oppression to the best of my ability, and I will speak up when I see it happening.
Stepping on others to pull myself up? Ain’t gonna happen. -
sister of ye says:
Violet, if I understand you right, you’re citing the existence of women rapists to support the idea that being violent doesn’t preclude this person from legitimately considering him/herself a woman. However, I don’t think that actually helps the case.
Without reading all the pleadings and arguments, I can only infer from what was quoted. But it appears Lawson was arguing that his major problem was being physically the wrong sex and transformation would resolve that. But as you pointed out, a penis isn’t required to rape or kill. Therefore, there’s no guarantee that chemical or surgical castration would solve his tendency to turn to violence as a solution facing frustration.
He also seems to have an incredibly narrow idea of what being a woman encompasses. Apparently his stepfather punished him for “acting feminine.” By his attorney’s arguments re the restrictions on skirts and make-up, and Lawson’s need to “live as a woman,” that appears to consist of wearing “women’s clothes” and make-up. By that criterion, I haven’t lived as a woman for years.
I bet if you got inside Lawson’s head, his/her gender ideas are just as rigid as the most diehard fundie. I wager he/she has incredibly unrealistic expections of the change to womanhood. When it doesn’t solve his/her personal problems, he/she is likely to turn to violence again.
As a man or women, I don’t think I’d let Lawson be around any other prisoners, and definitely not released back into public life.
Well, I don’t even play a psychologist or lawyer on TV, but that’s how it reads to me.
-
Hedgepig says:
The sense of entitlement felt by males is acquired through socialisation. So, regardless of a man’s self-identification as female or male, if he has been socialised from birth as a male he will acquire the culturally approved sense of male entitlement. As yttik observed, the behaviour of this person seems to fit the male entitlement bill perfectly.
Even with non-violent, sane transexuals, I see a lot of male entitlement in the expectation that women should accept them without question as females because they self-identify as such. If you haven’t been socialised from very early life as a female, then you are not female. -
Violet says:
Violet, if I understand you right, you’re citing the existence of women rapists to support the idea that being violent doesn’t preclude this person from legitimately considering him/herself a woman.
No, I was responding to the assertion that violence proves the person is really a male, and that violence is exclusively a male trait. Which is absurd. I mean, by that logic, anyone who is violent is male. Anyone who acts like an entitled asshole is male.
Naomi Campbell is a man!
-
Violet says:
If you haven’t been socialised from very early life as a female, then you are not female.
So if a child with two X chromosomes and a vagina is brought up and socialized as a boy, then she’s not female?
I’m really surprised at some of the comments here. It seems people are fundamentally disputing that transsexualism even exists. I would have thought that was settled a few decades ago.
-
Hedgepig says:
If she is socialised as a boy by family AND society, she will exhibit male attributes such as the well-documented sense of entitlement displayed by males.
I realise my definition of female does not have widespread acceptance. I believe a female is a member of the class/caste that is the designated orifice. No or limited bodily integrity is fundamental. All humans have orifices. Females are taught that their orifices are violable by definition. This is what makes a female. Regardless of which suite of orifices you possess, if you are not taught from birth by your familial group AND your society that your orifices are there to have things inserted in them, you are not part of the female caste. -
witchy-woo says:
Skimmed all comments. Sorry. Just wanted to say that UK prisons are supposedly organised on lines of sex, not gender - mainly for the safety of incarcerated females.
This being the case, this person should be incarcerated amongst males, not females, as he is male. Not denying his transgender status one little bit but this is one person who might be placed at risk within a prison for those of the same sex (and there are measures in place for safeguarding those at risk, it’s called rule 43) but who has already demonstrated that he is not averse to placing any female at risk in order to get what he wants. And he wants to be in a female prison? This is gender equality gone mad for the sake of the bepenised.I surely can’t be the only person concerned for the safety of the female prison population should this person gain access to them? Either I’m mad or the system is. (Don’t say it…)
When the female inmates find out he’s male he’ll be a rule 43er anyway so what’s the difference?
-
Violet says:
“Female brain in a male body” is a gross oversimplification, but close enough.
Just in case anyone is reading this and taking it on board as an established fact, please note that the theory of brain sex is purely hypothetical. There are very slight average physical differences between male and female brains, but no one knows for sure what if any behavior those differences map to. Nor are the physical differences such that a neurologist could even distinguish a male brain from a female brain at random.
Needless to say, the junk science books about “female brains” and such are largely nonsense. Dr. Crockus can explain it all for you.
-
witchy-woo says:
Serial posting - my bad…
Just read the last few comments and the age old confusion between sex and gender seems to be raising its head again.
One’s sex is immutable, it’s in your chromasomes - it cannot be changed. Born male = male. Born female = female. (Born intersexed = usually assigned female.)
A female/girl child socialised as a boy is still female. A male/boy child socialised as a girl is still male. The words “girl” and “boy” are gender descriptors and, as such, are not immutable. Gender is a fluid fantasy, as we all know. Those of one sex who wish to become surgically altered in order to resemble another may alter their bodies and their gender but not their sex. There’s a huge difference between biology and cosmetics. (I can’t *believe* I’m saying this here!)
-
Violet says:
Witchy! It’s so nice to see you. It’s been an age.
Just wanted to say that UK prisons are supposedly organised on lines of sex, not gender - mainly for the safety of incarcerated females.
What about the certificate A has? It sounds like her sex has legally been changed. How does the law work over there? (Tell youknowwho to put his law degree to good use and explain it to us.)
-
LabRat says:
I surely can’t be the only person concerned for the safety of the female prison population should this person gain access to them?
Hardly. They want to take a person whose entire criminal history is one of inflicting violence on people that are relatively helpess, remove them from an environment in which the people surrounding are intimidatingly large, strong, and hostile, and instead put them in with people that are mostly smaller and weaker, but will still be frustratingly unwilling to accept them as their nonbiological sex.
It’s very strange how people that claim to be unable to stop themselves from expressing their angst through violence seem to develop wonderful powers of self-discipline when amongst people that can defend themselves capably, and tend to relapse when instead surrounded by easier prey. Somebody should probably look into it.
-
Esther says:
yttik says:
“About murdering her boyfriend:
“She says that, although at first accepting of her gender dysphoria, he moved to hostility when she became increasingly feminised….”
Oh I empathize plenty. As she became more and more female, her boyfriend became more and more hostile. Tell me about it. Welcome to the world of women.”I’m assuming that what we know about her boyfriend is what she’s said about him post-murder; we’ll never get a chance to verify the facts - and many people up for murder will say anything to make them look sympathetic too.
I just find it mind-boggling that some commenters here are so nonchalant about a man’s murder - simply because he’s a man.
She smothered and suffocated him - a slow, agonizing and deliberately inflicted death.
But I suppose you’re seeing the crime in the abstract - one woman living out the fantasy of many and sticking it to men - rather than seeing the boyfriend as an individual, you know, with family, friends, a life, a job, interests… in other words a human life… I guess empathy has its clearly defined limits.
“In 2001, when he was aged 18, he had admitted strangling his former lover when he refused to pay for Lawson’s sex change operation.”
The boyfriend refused to pay for the operation. The murderer didn’t get what she wanted, so she choked the life out of him.
-
Violet says:
I just find it mind-boggling that some commenters here are so nonchalant about a man’s murder - simply because he’s a man…But I suppose you’re seeing the crime in the abstract - one woman living out the fantasy of many and sticking it to men
What on earth? Who the fuck are you? Never mind; go away. Jesus.
-
m Andrea says:
All the neurobiologists that I know are pretty clear that there is a difference in how hormones affect the developement of brain structures, and also how those structures continue to function. Gawd knows I’ve bugged them about it often enough. But then they turn right around and insist that there is no pink gene thingamabob in the brain.
And if that isn’t confusing enough, they then go on to say that the hormonal balance of a body could indicate “female-like” levels while at the same time the hormonal balance of the brain, in the same person, could indicate “male-like” levels. Really honestly, I no longer care what anybody believes, except an endocrinologist.
So far, the consensus tentatively refutes that Crockus dude: males tend to get stuck at the detail level, repeatedly, and miss the big picture, while females tend to get the big picture but can do detail quite well when the occasion demands it.
http://www.psychologytoday.com.....-scorecard
One problem is that we are stuck in a penis-worshipping cult, and so we tend to interpret everything designated female as inferior. Even that article above tries to put a spin on the known facts. Yet that testosterone fueled tendancy towards domination has almost wiped out our chances at a sustainable environment, while life in a highly complex society clearly requires an estrogen fueled tendancy to string disparate ideas together easily.
-
Violet says:
mAndrea, you should never ever trust an article on sex differences from Psychology Today. Never. They are hopelessly in thrall to junk science and egregiously sexist crapola. They publish Baumeister, for chrissake. They publish ev psych. They’ll publish anything. They’re notorious for junk science.
What I said before is true: there are very slight (tiny, even) average physical differences between male and female brains, but no one knows what behaviors, if any, those differences map to. For example, possibly the most robust difference between male and female brains is that women on average have higher cerebral blood flow, even at rest. But what does it mean? Nobody knows. People make up theories as it suits them: women’s brains are busier because they’re thinking all the time; women’s brains are busier because they’re dumber than men and have to work harder at even simple existence; or maybe there’s no behavioral analog at all. Maybe it’s just a slight physical difference that doesn’t amount to anything.
-
Anna Belle says:
How strange you would say this, since the entire premise of the post is that A’s past makes her potentially dangerous to women inmates, and that penis-bearers are excluded precisely because of the risk of rape. There was no other reason to even write the post.
Except that you don’t actually address any of the issues these born-women might face in the post, because you’re so busy trying to figure out if what happened to the born-female victim was actually attempted rape (WTF!) and accommodating the novelty of his transgendered status into your liberalized “anything goes*” sexual ethic. So much so that you are actually trying to shame feminists who see genital mutilation of this kind as more symptomatic of patriarchy, rather than espousing the traditional progressive dude nation point of view that its “cool” and an issue of civil rights.
I’m actually surprised by your reaction to this. I can’t believe you’re using the old shaming devise instead of answering some of the important questions that have been ask, such as what one does with a woman who has been trained as a male and still acts like a male even after he has mutilated his penis?
And really? You would rather trust what the transexed say as the ultimate expert authority on whether or not this is a civil rights issue or a mental health issue? In that case, call off the fucking psychs. Schizophrenics ought to be taken seriously too. Who’s to say they aren’t REALLY hearing the voice of Jesus or General Lee in their heads?
Body dymorphia is a serious mental illness because it causes people to mutilate their bodies. Gender dysmorphia however, which is the exact same thing, but given a different name, is perfectly acceptable, and if you don’t think it is, the liberalized will start screaming and chanting,”It’s cool! It’s cool! You’re a fucking bigot!” because that’s one way they make change happen, make things once unacceptable now acceptable. Just like the right, they shout people down.
Gender dysmophics deserve our protection, because they are caught up in the same patriarchy we are. They will be mutilated in surgery and then placed on drugs for the rest of their lives, costing an exorbitant amount of money. Yet they no more have a choice in this matter than the young prostitute does. The prostitute however, at least gets our protection. We actually celebrate it when another doctor, in a thoroughly patriarchified medical system, claims a penis or sculpts a vagina.
That some people won’t even question this or ALLOW questions about this suggests to me that they are so caught up in their political identity, they can’t possible be critically thinking about it.
*For men and gays, that is. Straight poor women have to stop using their vags to make money, of course, because that sets back the cause and they are catering to the patriarchy.
-
seattlegal says:
From the BBC article in the OP 2nd update:
Transsexual jailed for rape attempt
A transsexual who said he tried to rape a woman so he could go to prison and have a sex change operation has been jailed for life.
Karen Louise Lawson - who used to be called Mark John Jones - committed the attack in a transsexuals’ shop in Greater Manchester.
Let’s see, who would have more compassion for transsexuals than someone who chooses to work in a transsexual shop? What did this woman’s compassion get her in this case? Sexually assaulted!
This transsexual showed no mercy whatsoever to those behaving mercifully towards transsexuals. If you choose to stomp all over mercy, what’s left, other than judgment?
-
m Andrea says:
That was just the first one in the search results. There’s a ton of research available now which indicates at least some degree of structual brain differences among the sexes, it’s only the interpretation of those facts which hasn’t reached concensus. For instance, higher levels of testosterone increase the likelyhood of aggression, increase libido, decrease impulse control, decrease big picture cognitive ability — those are facts which have reached consensus, but up til have always been spun as either a positive or an excuse when occurring in males.
Anyway, it doesn’t make strategic sense to keep saying there are no differences, when the evidence clearly suggests the opposite. And because we still live in a cult which will spin those differences in favor of the male, it is only basic offensive strategy to point out the negative consequences of those tendancies. We’re never going to get anywhere playing on the defense at this stage of the game; offensive strategy always moves further, faster. We’re at the point now where “almost equal” stalls into complacency, continually at risk of more rights being eroded. And I’ve never seriously advocated going over the line into oppression of men, that would be hypocrisy.
-
lisas says:
It sounds to me like this woman will not stop at anything to get what she wants, and the suffering she causes to others means nothing as long as ultimately she gets the surgery, medicine, etc she requires. Kill someone? Sure. Violate someone else? Sure. Nothing matters but the self.
Interesting too, that she wants to be moved not because she’s fearful at being in a men’s prison, but because it’s a requirement to complete her change. And weirdly, I would support her being moved to live amongst women prisoners except that by doing so, officials would be REWARDING this woman’s horrific behavior.
I don’t know that the women in the prison are in any more danger from this woman than they would be from any other: This woman hurts and kills people in order to attain her goal of becoming a woman. I don’t think her former life as a dude is enough to make her more of a menace than any other assaulting, murdering woman.
-
Hammer of the Dyke says:
Hormones and their effects vary more widely within a sex than they do between them. Dr Veronica Drantz’s slide show contains examples that fit her pre-ordained conclusions. As with most scientific studies (hate to say it, but it’s true), confounding data is simply excluded. During fetal development, the production of testosterones (all sex hormones come in multiple forms) by the Y chromosome mutation (sorry, but that’s what it is) causes the phenotypic development of a male - unless the target tissues do not respond. In that case, the child will appear female, even with XY chromosomes. In addition, in a species as neotenous as humans whose sex differentiation is spotty at best (and must be enforced by social codes), maturation often brings regression to the baby-faced mean (levels of 5-alpha reductase-2 will vary widely, not only among transsexuals but among the general population).
I really dislike these biology is destiny arguments, for that is what they become. There is no assertion that can be made on the basis of biology alone - ooohhhh, here are the genes, hormones, etc., that make you gay, or trans or womanly. There is simply no way to eliminate confounding variables or the influence of the environment. These studies always like to present themselves in the supposedly dispassionate Cloak of Science, but they always seem to have an agenda (and my, oh my, a receptive audience among the evolutionary psychologists). Blech! Anyway, the advantage to the modicum of sexual differentiation (a single chromosome in humans) and sexual reproduction may be the decreased likelihood of being wiped out by parasite infestation.
-
Violet says:
Anyway, it doesn’t make strategic sense to keep saying there are no differences, when the evidence clearly suggests the opposite…We’re never going to get anywhere playing on the defense at this stage of the game; offensive strategy always moves further, faster.
Who is “we”? What are you talking about?
I’m talking about serious brain research. You seem to be under the impression that all the junk science you’ve read is real and that it’s just “playing defense” to reject it. For chrissake, try reading some cog sci or neuroscience for a change.
-
Violet says:
Except that you don’t actually address any of the issues these born-women might face in the post, because you’re so busy trying to figure out if what happened to the born-female victim was actually attempted rape (WTF!) and accommodating the novelty of his transgendered status into your liberalized “anything goes*” sexual ethic. So much so that you are actually trying to shame feminists who see genital mutilation of this kind as more symptomatic of patriarchy, rather than espousing the traditional progressive dude nation point of view that its “cool” and an issue of civil rights.
I beg your fucking pardon? Shaming?
The concern for the safety of the women’s prisoners is a given. It’s the premise of the post, the reason there’s even a question about what to do with A. Do I need to expand on women’s oppression for my readers at a feminist blog?
I also consider transsexualism a given. It’s poorly understood, as I said, but it’s worth trying to understand it — a project that is not well served by doctrinaire a priori assertions about what it is or isn’t. (This, I note, is true for all things.) I’m genuinely surprised by some reactions to it.
I can’t believe you’re using the old shaming devise instead of answering some of the important questions that have been ask, such as what one does with a woman who has been trained as a male and still acts like a male even after he has mutilated his penis?
You mean the important question that I ASKED and that was THE ENTIRE PREMISE OF THE FUCKING POST? Yeah, how dare I not answer the question that I ASKED AND WAS THE ENTIRE PREMISE OF THE POST AND THAT I SAID I DIDN’T KNOW THE ANSWER TO AND SUGGESTED PEOPLE DISCUSS.
I don’t know the answer to the question. What we’re having here is a discussion. And I disagree with and am surprised by some of the points people are making, such as that violence alone proves that A is still male, etc.
That some people won’t even question this or ALLOW questions about this suggests to me that they are so caught up in their political identity, they can’t possible be critically thinking about it.
Yep, that’s me. So caught up in my political identity that I never swerve from the Blogger Boyz path, never break ranks with other liberals or Democrats. Nope, not me. This little blog is just a fucking clone of Daily Kos and Pandagon and every other shit-eating pro-Obama patriarchy-enabling outfit. Whatever the other feminists are saying, by god, that’s what I say too. I just check my Feminist Blogs feed for the message of the day, rearrange a few words, and I’m good to go.
You are the one with a fucked up and nasty attitude and what looks like an obsession with some kind of political position. I’m just interested in what is the safe and fair thing for these prisoners.
-
Suzie says:
Tabby, when I asked who you thought were most oppressed, I did it because I thought you were saying that transgendered people are. Thanks for explaining your position to me. I agree that we don’t need hierarchies of oppression.
You said: “I’m not going to try to get out from under my oppression at the expense of another group.” But that’s why I get upset at transwomen who are gender essentialists. (Not all are, of course.) I think they are stepping on (cis, intersexed and other trans) women to get ahead. It reifies the idea that men and women are very different in the way they think, feel and act because of biology.
When you listed all the groups that ostracize trans people, it was a great generalization. Most prominent feminists support trans rights. Because they don’t have the numbers, trans people have won what rights they do have because of the support of lesbian, bi and gay people, primarily, and a coalition of other progressives. In the U.S., we just added gender to the main hate-crime law, and I don’t think that would have happened without the clout of LGBT groups.
-
K.A. says:
Violet, I think the reaction of the people who were disappointed that you seemingly downplayed how disturbingly misogynist this is stems from a perceived deviation in how you normally regard these issues—not that you’re some blogger boyz minion, as you’re quite the opposite, which is why I was taken aback by the muted response here. The way I think of you can be summed up with a Comment of the Day you featured months ago:
Comment of the day
By Violet · Friday, February 20th, 2009 ·From yttk:
The problem is you have to make a vegan, environmentally friendly, culturally respectful, racially supportive argument, every time you point to a woman’s mutilated body.
That’s what some of us feel like is happening here, which seems out of character for you, that’s all.
-
Violet says:
I’m sorry, but that makes no sense to me.
First of all, we’re talking about prison. Prisons are full of violent, dangerous people. The women’s prison that A is being transferred to is no doubt full of violent women who are a danger to other women. The men’s prison A is being transferred FROM is no doubt full of violent men who are a danger to other men. It’s fucking prison.
Those things should be a given. Also given: that crimes are bad, that murder is awful, that rape is awful, that the victims suffered, etc. Also given: that prisoners are human beings and have basic rights, and deserve to be housed safely and treated humanely.
All that, to me, is a given. And I wrote the post because this situation involves the intersection of several issues and concerns. It’s a weird case. The British authorities are clearly divided on it, with the Justice Ministry arguing that the prisoner does not belong in a women’s prison, while the high court ruled that legally, as a legal female, she must be accommodated there.
Apparently people are disappointed that I’m actually considering the complexities of the case and the rights of all the people involved. Apparently there are only two dimensions here: evil transsexual man! embodiment of evil! BAD! and — innocent women prisoners! good innocent women! GOOD!
Jesus, that’s not life; it’s a fucking cartoon.
-
Sameol says:
Nobody said female prisoners are innocent, just that it seems really unlikely that there are prisons filled with violent female criminals, simply because the percentage of violent female offenders is pretty low. I believe women are involved in only about 15% of violent crime, and that’s if you count simple assault, otherwise the percentage is even lower. If most prisons are organized geographically, then the vast majority of female inmates will be nonviolent offenders (also true of male inmates, but a geographically organized male prison will have many, many more violent male offenders than an equivalent female prison). Female check kiters and drug posessors may be bad, but they’re probably less able to defend themselves than all these violent women who are a danger to other women.
-
Kiuku says:
Yes. The percentage of violent offenders who are women is slim, but so are women’s prisons. They may be violent, and they may have offended other women. It’s possible. I don’t know the statistics but I highly doubt that most women’s prisons are composed of violent offenders. But the fact that the so-called transgender raped someone while she had a penis, is evidence that she is a man and not a woman. Yes it happens that women rape women. However, it is exceedingly more likely that men rape women than women, therefore, exceedingly more likely that “she” is really a man and has an eroticized view of himself as a woman, so he can rape himself, as was the case with Ted Kacinski. A rapist is not going to stop raping until the perversions and sexual objectification of women are somehow alleviated. But by allowing him to move to a women’s prison, the judge has allowed him to continue his perversions.
-
kk says:
Hi, I’ve been reading this blog for ages and found this post very interesting. I’m in Australia and we have had a fairly famous case of a ’serial killer’ who has applied for gender re-assignment. I searched around for the article and found this discussion. I know it isn’t identical to the UK situation but I think there are some similarities and the comments in the post address many of the issues that are being raised here.
http://www.gender-id.com/phpBB.....amp;p=7000
Dr.Sox..I really enjoy your blog..keep up the good work
cheers
kk -
LabRat says:
Violence among female inmates is drastically under-researched; almost all data on intra-inmate violence in prison is among males, and almost all data on violence dealt to female prisoners focuses on rates of victimization rather than who’s doing the victimizing. (Which is often male prison guards and is a serious problem, but still.) Prison is a unique closed society; its social dynamics are vastly different from the outside world. We shouldn’t necessarily assume that inmates’ tendency to violence is fixed regardless of whether they are in prison or out of it. The single abstract that I could find on the subject actually found the rates of inmate-on-inmate violence to be about the same between male and female prisons, though it is just the one study.
If I wanted to be difficult, I might observe that dismissing women’s capacity for violence is another way to see them as less than full persons. It is, after all, the crudest form of exercising power.
-
Branjor says:
“Feeling like a woman in a man’s body.”
Mmm, but what does a woman “feel” like? I asked once why I don’t know what it “feels” like to be a woman when I am one and was told that that was because I was already in the right body, not the “wrong” one. (That’s something like how it went. It was a long time ago.) Really? If you believe that, then you would have to believe that male to female transsexuals are THE authorities on “what it feels like to be a woman” and we woman-borns should take lessons from them.
-
Violet says:
But the fact that the so-called transgender raped someone while she had a penis, is evidence that she is a man and not a woman.
But she didn’t rape anyone. That seems to me a crucial point. We don’t have the details of the case, but what we know is that she threatened the shop attendant but was unable to get an erection and ran off. For all we know the “attempted rape” consisted of saying, “Okay, I’m gonna rape you!” We just don’t know. People are clearly filling in the blanks with their own versions and going from there. It’s obvious some people here are picturing Mike Tyson in a dress, or Phillip Garrido trying to pass himself off as a woman. And if that were the case, believe me, I’d be the first to say put the fucker in the men’s prison and relax the guard.
But we don’t know. We don’t know what this person is like. All we can do is study the news articles for clues. The court testimony is that she looks like a woman and is completely believable as a woman. She has breasts. She wears makeup and dresses. She’s been on hormones, and is probably impotent. The most interesting thing to me, in a dog that barked in the night kind of way, is the absence of any reference to the possibility of her being a rape-risk to the female inmates. It’s possible that the British prison and court system is so utterly misogynistic that nobody cares, but on the other hand, the U.K. does have clear, thoughtful guidelines (which I downloaded and read) about how to deal with female prisoners and keep them safe. So they’re certainly very much aware of rape risk and threats from males. Why wasn’t this mentioned at all in the case of prisoner A? Possibly negligence, but it’s also possible that A is so thoroughly feminized that no one familiar with the case believes she represents a rape threat to female inmates.
Again: we don’t know. We simply don’t know. Mike Tyson in a dress? Maybe. A person so feminized that women inmates won’t find her a threat at all or even perceive her as remotely male? Maybe. We don’t know.
-
Violet says:
“Feeling like a woman in a man’s body.”
Mmm, but what does a woman “feel” like? I asked once why I don’t know what it “feels” like to be a woman when I am one and was told that that was because I was already in the right body, not the “wrong” one.
The saga of prisoner A is not a good test case for the concept of transgenderism/transsexualism, since she is criminally dangerous, unstable, and possibly insane. We wouldn’t look to Jeffrey Dahmer for an understanding of homosexuality, and we shouldn’t focus on a convicted murderer and attempted rapist to understand transsexuals.
But I keep seeing this idea that because trans people can’t clearly explain exactly what they feel in words and concepts that the interlocutor finds meaningful, then obviously they’re batshit and the whole thing is bogus. Not to get all Whorfian about it, but surely people realize the fallacy here. Just because we don’t have clear words (yet) for something doesn’t mean the thing doesn’t exist.
The Pirahã have no numbers beyond two, but I’m pretty sure numbers beyond two are valid concepts. But hey, they don’t understand them.
“What is this ‘eight’ you speak of? What is this business of ‘five’? And what do you mean by ‘eight minus five’? Gibberish!”
-
Nina M. says:
For all we know the “attempted rape” consisted of saying, “Okay, I’m gonna rape you!” We just don’t know.
Jeez, Vi, is this really you? The article at the BBC link above says the victim feared for her life, and the sentence was life in prison. I’m inclined believe that some seriously scary shit went down. On the other hand, maybe I’m reading you wrong, or you’re talking about a different case.
I haven’t read all the comments, so forgive me if I repeat, but this matter seems straightforward (cough) to me. You could go either of two ways (cough).
1. IF she, as a prisoner, has the legal right to sex reassignment surgery while she’s serving time, the prisons shouldn’t be able to effectively negate that right by refusing to move the prisoner to the appropriate prison. Move her to the women’s prison, but put her under protective custody or whatever its called - keep her largely separate from the other women until she loses the penis. Not only could the penis be used as a weapon, but I imagine it could be mighty disruptive to fellow inmates who are inclined to make the most of said penis, while it lasts, with or without the consent of its owner.
When the penis is off, she should be treated like any other female offender with a history of violence against other women.
2. Change the procedure for sex reassignment so that people in special situations, like prisoners, can skip the “living as” part of the process. Then send her live with the violent female prisoners.
Placing this woman in the women’s prison even though she attempted to rape another woman is not unlike placing a male rapist of men in the men’s prison. For example, my former neighbors: men who raped (and killed) a man. They will never go to prison, but just for the sake of argument, if they did, they would be sent to a men’s prison where they could prey on other men, including men who are in there for DUI, drug charges, and other non-violent offenses; men who are slight of stature; men who are young and Asian (one of their many fetishes); men who are the victims of sexual abuse, and so on.
The whole idea of mixing violent and non-violent offenders together makes me ill. That should stopped entirely.
-
Violet says:
Jeez, Vi, is this really you? The article at the BBC link above says the victim feared for her life, and the sentence was life in prison. I’m inclined believe that some seriously scary shit went down.
I’m just trying to point out the full range of possibilities, based on the meager clues. I’m not minimizing anything. I’m inclined to believe some seriously scary shit went down too, but my point is that this is what we’re all doing — imagining what happened. We don’t actually know. Based on the data points available, there are many possibilities. That the victim feared for her life just tells us that the victim was terrified, as I would be too. The sentence was, as I understand it, an automatic thing triggered by the two offenses — kind of a two-strikes-you’re-out thing.
-
Madeleine says:
Why are you defending a wanna be rapist - who just “couldn’t get it up”?
Which if do do some research is exactly what happened.
Seriously, this is mind boggling.
-
Violet says:
Why are you defending a wanna be rapist - who just “couldn’t get it up”?
I don’t know who you’re addressing, but no one in this thread is “defending” the person. She committed a crime and she’s dangerous. Everybody gets that.
The question is about whether she should be housed at a women’s prison, as the high court ruled.
-
Nina M. says:
but my point is that this is what we’re all doing — imagining what happened. We don’t actually know. Based on the data points available, there are many possibilities. That the victim feared for her life just tells us that the victim was terrified, as I would be too. .
Vi, it sort of feels like you’re sending out mixed signals, and that might be what’s throwing people off. Its what’s throwing me off, anyway. I see that you are not denying the attempted rape took place and that she was terrified. But when you write phrases like “we don’t actually know what happened” and “there are many possibilities” it sounds so much like what we’re used to hearing from people who deny a rape / attempted rape took place, or deny that its a serious crime, or are about to follow it up with “its his word against hers, what can you do” that all the wrong buttons get pushed.
Perhaps i just don’t know what you mean by “there are many possibilities.” Technically true, but the victim said it was attempted rape, the police agreed, the prosecutor agreed, and the judge agreed. I don’t see where the ambiguity is.
-
Suzie says:
Hey, while we’ve been discussing this, a British court has transferred her to a women’s prison.
http://www.google.com/hostedne.....2ptZM0Zmgg
Also, here’s an update on the case mentioned by kk. Michelle Kosilek has been living in a men’s prison in Mass. since 1993. As a man, she murdered her wife.
-
Suzie says:
As for her looks, the judge said she “presents convincingly as a woman”.
-
LabRat says:
Technically true, but the victim said it was attempted rape, the police agreed, the prosecutor agreed, and the judge agreed. I don’t see where the ambiguity is.
I ain’t Violet, but from where I’m sitting, the area of ambiguity is whether A attempted the rape because A gets off on rape or because A was trying to get sent back to jail, which A believed would force the state to grant a sex change. My own response is simple because I see both scenarios as cases of an individual willing to hurt or kill others to get their way or vent frustration, but that doesn’t mean the original question wasn’t complex.
If A gets off on raping women, women’s prison would be a disaster. If A just really wants to be a woman and the rape was incidental then theoretically living as a woman might help. I just think that the rationale for and level of violence so far makes the question moot.
-
witchy-woo says:
“The women’s prison that A is being transferred to is no doubt full of violent women who are a danger to other women.”
Actually, most women in prison in this country are in for tiddly offences like not paying their telly license. It’s a major bone of (feminist) contention over here that women are treated far more harshly by the judiciary than men are, simply because they’re women.
And the women in prison are far more likely to be a danger to themselves than any other woman - extreme self harming is endemic.“What about the certificate A has? It sounds like her sex has legally been changed. How does the law work over there?”
That’ll be his gender reassignment certificate - his sex is his sex is his sex and all the frocks, lippy and even surgery in the world can’t change his biology. He’s still male.
Basically, the law here now states that everyone can self define their gender. Think you’re a woman? Oh, ok then, you’re a woman.
I don’t have a fundamental problem with that until males who think they’re women gain access to single sex facilities - like prisons, refuges, etc. - or the delivery of personal care to females because the safety of female people (heretofore known as “women”) is then massively compromised.It’s not difficult surely, is it?
-
Suzie says:
Here are more details on the attempted rape from the source below: “The court was told Lawson had forced a lemon into the woman’s mouth, punched her in the face and held her by the hair in a back room of the shop.”
http://www.manchestereveningne.....e_man.html
As y’all probably know, a lot of cis & straight rapists fail to get an erection.
-
Violet says:
But when you write phrases like “we don’t actually know what happened” and “there are many possibilities” it sounds so much like what we’re used to hearing from people who deny a rape / attempted rape took place, or deny that its a serious crime, or are about to follow it up with “its his word against hers, what can you do” that all the wrong buttons get pushed.
Heavens. That’s not what’s going on in my mind at all. I don’t understand the mixed signals business; I’m just trying to think through the case and bemoaning the lack of info.
I guess I’m not being clear.
My thinking is like this:
1. Transgender woman — sure, should be in women’s prison.
2. But! Transgender woman has a history of being an attempted rapist, when she was still legally male!
3. Prisoner’s past as male rapist surely obviates current status as female.
4. But legally prisoner is female.
5. Okay, drill down logically: what is purpose of keeping males/rapists out of women’s prison?
6. To protect women prisoners from men, particularly men who pose sexual threats.
7. So, maybe issue turns on how much of a threat prisoner A poses to women?
8. To determine, must know more about prisoner and her crimes.
9. Alas! We don’t have much information. Many possibilities could fit the few facts given.
10. Study newspapers for details!
11. All we see is that the crime was attempted rape, prisoner could not get erection and ran off, shopgirl feared for life.
12. Hmm. Those few facts could fit many possible scenarios, from Mike Tyson in dress to highly feminized impotent transwoman.
13. Must write to Justice Ministry for details on case.Like that.
-
Suzie says:
Hey, my comment is still in moderation saying that she was transferred several days ago to a women’s prison. I like to be first with the news!
I’m a former journalist. For anyone curious about a quick way to search with Google, I put in “prisoner A” and rape and then I clicked on “news.” That gave me the latest.
For the previous crime, I used her previous male name and “rape,” clicked on “news,” got nothing, but then clicked on “news archives.”
-
Violet says:
I should add, Nina, that perhaps we’re crossing signals because I don’t believe that having a certificate and a self-declared status as a woman is automatically enough to give prisoner A the right to be housed in the women’s prison, which I think you do (assuming proper guarding for violence, etc.). I think the attempted rape is a majorly complicating factor, and needs to be considered very carefully in terms of whether she should be housed with women.
For example, if she were a Phillip Garrido type (which she’s clearly not, from what we’re reading), then I would say hell no. I don’t care if she’s a woman now and has a certificate; I would not think it right at all to put a predator like that in the women’s prison. Hence my interest in the details of the prisoner’s past crimes and how male she is, etc. Which maybe is inappropriate, but that’s how I’m approaching it.
-
Nina M. says:
Aha! I understand what you’re saying now. You are wondering not about the nature of the crime (the attemped rape); you are wondering about what gender identity - or what identity, period - the assailant had when she committed the rape. Was she presenting as male or female; has her identity, her self-concept changed since that time. Mentally, is she the same person now that she was then. There are many possibilities. Am I right? Is that it?
One thing we know - the assailant had already identified as a male homosexual. Yet, as a man who had sex with men, he attempted to rape a female. Why would a gay man decide to rape a woman?
The first answer that springs to my mind is intense anger fed by jealousy, frustration, and pain. The second is that he has zero impulse control and chooses to resolve situations he finds frustrating by lashing out, violently and intimately (strangling is terribly intimate). His violent actions are of the sort that express a desire to have complete control over the victim. He gets frustrated, he can’t handle it, he decides to resolve his frustration by completely subduing the frustrating person.
in that case, I don’t think the sex of the victim matters so much; rather, its his pattern of behavior that’s key. He’s a menace to both men and women.. to anyone he gets the urge the dominate.
-
Violet says:
One thing we know - the assailant had already identified as a male homosexual. Yet, as a man who had sex with men, he attempted to rape a female. Why would a gay man decide to rape a woman?
Wait a minute, where did you get that? What I’ve read is that prisoner A was already identifying as a woman since her teen years. She killed her boyfriend out of frustration that he wouldn’t pay for the sex change. And at the time of the attempted rape, she was living in a women’s shelter.
-
Violet says:
“The court was told Lawson had forced a lemon into the woman’s mouth, punched her in the face and held her by the hair in a back room of the shop.”
Hoo boy. Definitely very violent.
I’ve been searching again and just now found this old news article about the attempted rape:
But she received no help for her severe gender dysphoria during her spell in custody and lashed out on her release saying she was angry that her victim was a woman and she was not.
Oh that’s just wonderful. Just fabulous.
Okay, who suggested Broadmoor? Because this person is scary as all get-out.
-
Nina M. says:
I thought someone said that the attempted rape happened before he started to identify as a she. Wait, maybe I should have understood that as before she started the transgender process. Hmm. You’re right. What I said made no sense, since she says (and i imagine the many steps of the process confirmed) that she felt like a she right from the get go.
So, self-identifying as a hetero woman, but attempting to rape another woman? Sounds like flat out hatred/ wanting to dominate / control.
Forced a lemon into someone’s mouth - sounds like something a parent or older sibling would do to punish a child, akin to washing one’s mouth out with soap. Forcing food into one’s mouth is what a parent does.
-
Nina M. says:
Okay, so - extremely violent, will attack both men and women. Surely there are a few other extremely violent women incarcerated in Britain - that’s where she goes.
I just love how being sentenced to life in prison = eligible for parole.
-
witchy-woo says:
It’s less costly (in terms of £) to keep this person in a woman’s prison with ordinary women prisoners than it is to place him in Broadmoor.
-
witchy-woo says:
“So, self-identifying as a hetero woman, but attempting to rape another woman? Sounds like flat out hatred/ wanting to dominate / control.”
Yup. And we all do that, don’t we. Oh no, wait… that’s what men do to us!
-
Suzie says:
Nina, putting something like a lemon in someone’s mouth keeps them from screaming. Criminals do this. People into BDSM also use ball gags, i.e., they stuff a ball into the person’s mouth. In fact, if you have the stomach for it, you can look at Wikipedia’s page on Gags (BDSM) and see various photos of women being gagged. Anyone who goes into a sex-toy store will see this.
A. killed her boyfriend when she was 18. She said she had wanted to be female since she was 10. (Since she sounds like a sociopath, however, I have no idea if she was telling the truth.) She began transitioning in prison and got certified as female then.
Another point: The woman she attempted to rape may well have been a transwoman since the victim was working in a store that caters to transwomen. It would be interesting to hear what the victim thinks.
Here’s the shop, which also offers hormones to “feminize your … inner feelings.” Damn, since I went through menopause and my estrogen level dropped, I guess I’m becoming masculinized.
-
Suzie says:
Whoops, I forgot the link. Damn that lack of estrogen!
-
Violet says:
Another point: The woman she attempted to rape may well have been a transwoman since the victim was working in a store that caters to transwomen.
I have been wondering that myself.
Thanks for the link to the Trans shop. I found that the other night when I was scrounging about for anything on the story. I was surprised to see that the store describes itself as catering to the transgendered, but it’s clearly just for males-to-females. Doesn’t seem to be anything at all for females-to-males. Is there a line of shops in the UK for that clientele I wonder?
-
Violet says:
Good lord, this post brings out the crazies. Some troll in my mod queue is now accusing me of posting “red herrings” by wondering aloud about the trans shop. Calm the fuck down and go take a nap, you goddamn freaks.
-
witchy-woo says:
Shops catering to F to M transgendered? I wouldn’t know - though I seriously doubt it. The fetish is all about the “female” and that’s where the money’s to be made. Females who want to be men are largely abandoned in the commercial world, I fancy. After all, it’s not “sexy”, is it.
“Another point: The woman she attempted to rape may well have been a transwoman since the victim was working in a store that caters to transwomen. It would be interesting to hear what the victim thinks.”
What? Whether they felt an attempt to rape them had been made? Whether attempted rape of a transwoman is *actually* an attempted rape? I’m not getting why what they have to say would be “interesting” - they reported it as attempted rape, after all…Surely, that’s what the victim thinks - attempted rape - regardless of their gender status? They reported it as attempted rape so, surely, that’s what they experienced?
-
Violet says:
The fetish is all about the “female” and that’s where the money’s to be made. Females who want to be men are largely abandoned in the commercial world, I fancy.
I think it also must be that the Trans shop is catering not just to transsexual types but to the male transvestite and drag queen population, of which there are many. But it’s my understanding (could be wrong) that there are relatively few female transvestites.
-
Hammer of the Dyke says:
I believe that, deep inside, I am an airplane. I have murdered my partner because she would not pay for flying lessons. I then abducted and attempted to rape a stewardess because I was frustrated in my lack of progress toward being recognized as the F-16 I am (my wings have been tattooed but I can’t get the funds to finish the landing gear - something I feel I’m owed and I’m quite willing to commit violent acts to get what I want). Now, I would like to serve out my prison sentence in a high-security hangar, among the other airplanes like myself. Why shouldn’t my mental illness be indulged to the same degree as A’s?
-
m Andrea says:
It’s a TRANS shop, for transitioning, which sells all kinds of things for making a man look like a woman. Ftm don’t need props or accessories. Mtf need all kinds. The shopgirl might have been trans, but in the US they are usually staffed by real women because the trans will frequent more often and spend more money if they are served by females. It makes the trans feel as if they’re being accepted into the secret women’s club, which is extremely important to them.
And of course no one would hire a trans if she didn’t pass perfectly, and usually as soon as they hit that phase most don’t like to associate with trans anymore.
Otoh, advertising the sale of hormones isn’t exactly ethical, so they might also be doing illegal injections, in which case it’s more likely that the shopgirl would have been trans. And yet, I doubt if A would have attempted to rape a mtf shopgirl, who most likely would have still been saving for penis removal surgery.
I vote born woman.
-
witchy-woo says:
“I believe that, deep inside, I am an airplane. I have murdered my partner because she would not pay for flying lessons. I then abducted and attempted to rape a stewardess because I was frustrated in my lack of progress toward being recognized as the F-16 I am (my wings have been tattooed but I can’t get the funds to finish the landing gear - something I feel I’m owed and I’m quite willing to commit violent acts to get what I want). Now, I would like to serve out my prison sentence in a high-security hangar, among the other airplanes like myself. Why shouldn’t my mental illness be indulged to the same degree as A’s?”
Brilliant - says it all.
And I think I’ll be a giraffe today.
-
witchy-woo says:
Why are we calling him “A”? His name’s Mark John Jones.
-
Violet says:
It’s a TRANS shop, for transitioning, which sells all kinds of things for making a man look like a woman. Ftm don’t need props or accessories. Mtf need all kinds.
I think part of the problem here is that many diverse phenomena are lumped into one basket. The way “mtf” is used today, it can include transvestites, sexual fetishists, drag queens, pre- and post-op transsexuals, and various other permutations. This obscures the real nature and differences between these phenomena.
People seem to talk as if all mtf trans people are cross-dressing sexual fetishists, but they’re not. In fact, I think lumping transvestites — who are men with a sexual fetish about women’s clothing — in with seriously body-dysmorphic transsexuals just confuses the issue hopelessly. But increasingly that’s what’s done nowadays, with everyone “transgender” considered to be in the same boat.
-
Violet says:
Why are we calling him “A”? His name’s Mark John Jones.
I don’t believe that’s her legal name anymore. And we keep referring to her as prisoner A because of the initial article I posted.
-
witchy-woo says:
“Her?”
I’m a “her” - he isn’t. Oh yes, sorry. He *thinks* he’s female (silly me - actually being female. What a completelty daft mistake to make. Of course anyone can be “female” if he wants to be.)
And I have no confusion between transvestite and transgender.
That there is a shop for males who believe they’re women is frankly frightening but not surprising. Female women are being more and more marginalised by the overpowering voice of men who’d like to think they’re female.Until we rid the world of patriarchy and its strict gender binary the rights of males who believe they’re “women” will trump those of bona fide females every time because bona fide females rank far below males of any description.
Serioiusly, we don’t even enter into the argument. -
Violet says:
Witchy, at least in this country it’s considered polite to refer to transwomen as “she” and transmen as “he.” It doesn’t cost us anything and it’s a kindness.
Now, if you’re one of those feminists who somehow thinks transsexuals are a threat to women, then I won’t engage you on that. You are welcome to your opinion. I don’t think transsexuals are a threat to anyone; actually I feel rather sorry for them. I have a hard time even understanding how any woman or feminist could feel threatened by them. But obviously some do, so if that’s your feeling, then okay.
Of course I’m speaking about trans people in general, not about prisoner A who is criminally batshit and extremely dangerous!
-
Violet says:
Let me add that I don’t mean my previous comment to sound dismissive, nor am I trying to offend anyone. I just don’t think this is quite the place to go into The Great Trans debate, mostly because a) the subject of this post is criminally insane, so it would be like centering a discussion of homosexuality around Jeffrey Dahmer, and b) I just don’t have the energy or inclination for it right now. I simply don’t share the worldview or the experience of reality that informs some of the statements about trans issues that I’ve seen from some feminists. So it’s not a quick and easy subject to discuss.
-
witchy-woo says:
Oh Dr VS, I have no problem with transpeople whatsoever - mind you, maybe I’m not so concerned about being “kind” and “polite” in the US sense,iykwim - a male is a male as far as I’m concerned. I tend to be kind and polite to those who are kind and polite to me, you know? Both personally and politically.
I believe transgender people are victims of the patriarchy as much as I or any man is… Why the question about threat?
What gets my goat is the way that the safety of an entire female prison population is put at risk for the sake of this one male (who’s telling everyone he’s a “woman” but has tried to rape someone with his penis - wtf???) simply because he has “issues”.
In this case, fuck “polite”, fuck “kindness”.
He’s still a “he” - as is everyone born with XY chromasomes. Sometimes you Merkins take things a tad too far in the world of PC…
-
witchy-woo says:
Actually, it costs a lot…..
-
Violet says:
This kind of statement is what suggests threat:
Female women are being more and more marginalised by the overpowering voice of men who’d like to think they’re female.
I just don’t see that. Not at all. Men are marginalizing and oppressing women, as ever, and the patriarchy is screwing us all over, but I just don’t see the threat from the poor transsexuals, who seem to me like they’re in a world of hurt and fucked-upedness.
But anyway, about this prisoner — yes, this case does concern me. Prisoner A is dangerous and has already tried to rape one woman as a result of this gender identity disorder, if that article I posted in comment #82 is correct. It’s just alarming as hell. Is there any chance your lot over there actually know what they’re doing when it comes to dangerous prisoners?
-
Violet says:
God my finger hurts. I apologize if my comments are abrupt or ill-worded. Hurts so much to type.
Re that article I linked to in #82 — I have been thinking about that all evening. In my mind it really changes the complexion of the case. LabRat was talking before that about how we were trying to sort if the attempted rape was incidental or germane to A’s situation. And it seems that if that newspaper report is accurate, then it’s germane. The attempted rape was profoundly resultant from the GID. That’s really disturbing.
I hope they keep A in fricking isolation or something until the penis comes off. And maybe even after.
-
ne che says:
http://www.rapereliefshelter.b.....ology.html
How one trans(man) nearly shut down the rape relief centre, by demanding to be allowed to counsel rape victims. During the 10 years he kept up his fight, his court costs were paid by the taxpayer, while the rape relief centre had to fundraise for their costs, and rely on women lawyers working pro bono. Meanwhile, the women who needed the centre suffered by it’s being under seige from trans activists, and struggling to stay open.
-
maria says:
I don’t know how credible this source is, but it appears the court of appeal has ruled that prisoner A will be elegible for parole in 3.5 yrs (from 2005). http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news.....5-255.html
It seems to me that her whacked plan of getting the prison to pay for her surgery is now in the final stages since she will be meeting the ‘living as a woman’ requirement once moved to the women’s prison. Once the surgery goes through I imagine she’ll be paroled sooner rather than later.
This is all sorts of wrong.
-
Suzie says:
Witchy, it was me (not “they”) who said it would be interesting to hear from the victim. I didn’t mean to imply that her status (cis or trans) would matter in how she viewed the attempted rape. What I should have said was: We have spent a lot of time discussing the killer/rapist. I wish we could hear from the victim. What does she think about A being locked up with women? Does she feel like the government pays for sufficient therapy for victims?
-
ne che says:
In other words, you want her to speak in quotes for a human interest story?
Endanger herself for your journalistic voyeurism? If she had anything to say, I imagine it was in the court records.
ne che
a rape victim
a former prostituted woman
a woman (not cis)just WOMAN -
ne che says:
Put “her” in Broadmoor?
Broadmoor sexual abuse claims
Broadmoor High Security Hospital
A whistleblower is calling for an independent inquiry into a culture of serious sexual assault at Broadmoor high security hospital.Julia Wassell, the former director of women’s services at Broadmoor, alleges three female patients committed suicide and others attempted to kill themselves after male patients abused them.
A survey of just 28 women, carried out by Ms Wassell at the hospital in Berkshire in September 2001, found a high level of sexual abuse.
Between them, the women said they had experienced 1,008 incidents of verbal abuse, 64 of sexual harassment, 56 of sexual abuse, five rapes and six consensual sexual acts over the preceding three years.
Broadmoor’s regulations do not allow sexual intercourse to take place between patients.
Ms Wassell and her union Unison say there must be an inquiry into the events at the hospital. However, the Department of Health says an external review has already been carried out.
It happened under tables and in the pews at the church
Julia Wassell
She said her reports led to her being victimised and forced out of her job in April 2002 and she claimed constructive dismissal, recently settling out-of-court for an undisclosed sum with the hospital.Broadmoor housed over 350 men and 67 women at the time. Men can only be admitted to the hospital after committing murder, manslaughter or sexual offences.
Seventeen of the women there at that time had committed no offence. The majority of the rest were there for offences such as arson.
Sexual activity
Ms Wassell said she was first made aware male and female patients were left together after an allegation of sexual abuse during an unsupervised session at the sports field in June 2000.
Film from the hospital’s security cameras showed couples “in various degrees of sexual activity” around the sports field.
The hospital has let down Julia, the NHS and, most importantly, the women patients in their care
Dave Prentis, Unison
This was treated as an isolated incident, but unsupervised sessions at the sports field were ended.But in March 2001, Ms Wassell went to her managers to report female patients concerns after patients’ council, where men and women were again allowed to mix unsupervised.
Several women requested pregnancy tests after these sessions and one woman made an allegation of rape and indecent assault.
Minister notified
Police investigated the rape, but found there was not enough evidence to prosecute.
The woman later attempted to hang herself.
Ms Wassell alleges that managers, up to the level of chief executive, did not act when she raised concerns, leaving women vulnerable to further abuse.
She eventually resigned in April 2001 after being subjected to what she claims were minor disciplinary complaints.
Prior to her resignation, Ms Wassell reported her concerns to health minister Jacquie Smith via her local MP.
Ms Wassell said the Clinical Services Centre at the hospital co-ordinated the mixed activities.
She said: “I sometimes think the patients at Broadmoor were cleverer than the staff.
“Patients found opportunities to have sexual activity.”
She said male patients would surround women so staff could not see what was happening.
“They would stand in a circle around women. Or on the sports field, they would stand in a line between staff and female patients.
“It happened under tables and in the pews at the church.”
She said having a whistleblowing policy was not enough, and that senior managers had to abide by it.
Shock
Dave Prentis, general secretary of Unison, said: “The hospital has let down Julia, the NHS and, most importantly, the women patients in their care.
“It’s hard to listen to the details of the case and not be shocked. Shocked by the attitude of managers to the women in their care and shocked at the treatment meted out to Julia for raising her concerns.”
He added: “I understand that all mixed gender activities ceased just days after Julia handed in her resignation, but a lot of damage has already been done and that cannot be brushed under the carpet, which is why Unison is calling for a full independent inquiry.
“We owe that to the women, their families and to Julia.”
Review
In a statement, the West London Mental Health NHS Trust, which oversees Broadmoor denied it had tried to impose a gagging order or that Ms Wassell had been victimised.
It said Ms Wassell’s concerns were due to be discussed by the board, once she had compiled a report, but that she instigated the whistleblowing policy before this could occur.
The statement added: “Allegations made by patients have to be investigated to determine as far as possible exactly what happened, as patients may give accurate accounts or accounts which are affected by their mental health problem.
“Risks of inappropriate or potentially dangerous behaviour between patients are a constant feature of high security hospitals.
“Risks cannot be eliminated entirely and a balance has to be struck to maintain a therapeutic environment and preserve the rights of patients.”
Broadmoor and the Department of Health confirmed an external review had taken place into the allegations in March 2002.
A department spokesman said: “The response has meant that mixed sex activities suspended prior to and during the review will not be reinstated and single sex activities are being developed.”
Women’s services at Broadmoor are to close over the next two to three years, and patients will be transferred to a new women-only facility at Rampton Hospital.
-
Branjor says:
To correct the misinformation in #16, transsexualism is not an intersex condition.
-
Tabby Lavalamp says:
I’ve been avoiding the comments because anger (beyond that aimed at the criminal who deserves that anger, just to make this clear) and bigotry wear me down, but had to check in. This jumped out at me…
I’m a “her” - he isn’t. Oh yes, sorry. He *thinks* he’s female (silly me - actually being female. What a completelty daft mistake to make. Of course anyone can be “female” if he wants to be.)
And I have no confusion between transvestite and transgender.
That there is a shop for males who believe they’re women is frankly frightening but not surprising. Female women are being more and more marginalised by the overpowering voice of men who’d like to think they’re female.Until we rid the world of patriarchy and its strict gender binary the rights of males who believe they’re “women” will trump those of bona fide females every time because bona fide females rank far below males of any description.
Serioiusly, we don’t even enter into the argument.You’re not the only one who said something similar, and I just had to shake my head.
“Until we rid the world of patriarchy and its strict gender binary…” Yet up to this point, and after it, your comment was all about insisting that there is a binary - as strict a binary as the likes the most fundamentalist Christian would insist on.
How the hell are we going to get past gender if we refuse to do it ourselves? Not to conflate the two, but could we get past race if we insisted “black is black, white is white” while all the time railing at racists?
It seems to me that insisting there’s a binary is going to make getting past the binary awfully difficult.
And yes, before anyone jumps on me, I know the difference between physical sex and mental gender. I also see both (and sexual orientation too, while were at it) as spectra that I choose to embrace and celebrate instead of raging against people who refuse to be where I insist they should be on those spectra. -
Msakel says:
Very interesting story and agree with Violet’s objective, “developing” position on this. I don’t know what to think other than to say that “she” should be watched closely. Regardless of her “feminine credentials” on paper, she poses a grave threat to other inmates. It’s really tragic and I feel that the movie ‘NORMAL’ with Jessica Lange (wasn’t she fantastic in ‘Frances’!) in which she plays the wife of a heterosexual man who finds out he wants to be a woman and goes through the ‘change’ (yeah, it must hurt like Obama’s) will be helpful. It was to me and I still can’t believe Hollywood produced this phenom. But of course, it made the superb Boys Don’t Cry, too. The ‘Well of Loneliness’ classic will be made into a European movie I heard.
Excellent commentary here! -
K.A. says:
In my experience transsexualism is not always caused by the same thing, either. Cross-dressers aside, there are also autogynophilic transsexuals. They give the other ones a bad name unfortunately. The only transsexual I ever met was this kind, and the most misogynist person I have ever met in my life. It wasn’t just the autogynephilia fetish, it was that he also fetishized the social construction of what a female is considered to be in our culture, from a misogynist male’s point of view. He believed every horrific misogynist thing about women as a natural essence to their very being and got off on it. I call him a “he” because I don’t care what is between anyone’s legs, I care about what’s between their ears, and that, to me, is the most significant defining attribute for gender. Unfortunately, all of that mess happens after birth.
I want to add that I do feel for transsexuals, especially the ones that have it more like the people who feel uncomfortable with a limb like it’s foreign, and only feel relief after it’s finally amputated. But I feel more for women, because it’s even rarer that someone feels for women when it comes to a man’s needs trumping theirs–whether that man is also oppressed and going to become a woman too. He still has one up on them in the defense and sympathy department and hundreds up in the entitlement department.
-
K.A. says:
For what it’s worth, even if there are sexual assaults committed by women, I don’t see women marauding the streets attempting to sexually assault strangers. “A” is male in the HEAD thanks to his patriarchal position, and the whole de-peening of him is actually pretty irrelevant to me. I would feel completely degraded having A around me, worthless, not just intimidated. What a “know your place, bitch” that is from the penal system!
That I think the presence of his penis is irrelevant probably sums up why we’re misunderstanding one another. Also, there are so many other trans issues that have primed some of us to be pissed off in the first place.
-
Simon Kenton says:
This person got life in prison for murder and rape, and will be eligible for parole in 3.5 years. I am concerned that he’ll be placed among women who (practically) have little defense against him, in a prison system that doesn’t inspire much confidence that it will safeguard them effectively. But I’m also concerned that he’ll be out. At about age 30, pretty near his/her peak strength. Probably not here - I’m in the USA - but out. If he’s had his surgery, good (I guess), but I see no very firm prospect that that will gentle him. He has shown no impulse control whichever sex he is. The impulses he has acted on have not been practicing randon kindness or senseless acts of beauty; he’s behaved more savagely than a wolf, and he’ll be out. This aspect of the situation strikes me as more daft than the surgery/no surgery, woman/man inmate parts of the problem.
If the prisons were less physically and politically porous there’d be less support for the death penalty.
-
Violet says:
Well, that didn’t work. I’ve been trying throughout this comment thread to avoid the Great Trans Debate, and just focus on the unusual case of this prisoner. A few comments ago I even came right out and said that I didn’t want to go into the Great Trans Debate. But it doesn’t seem to matter.
You know why I hesitate to discuss trans issues? Because it’s damn near impossible to have a real discussion without it devolving into posturing and poo-flinging. Look at comment #50 in this thread, from AnnaBelle: in that comment she accuses me of having a “liberalized ‘anything goes’ sexual ethic,” of espousing the “traditional progressive dude nation point of view” that transgenderism is “‘cool’ and an issue of civil rights,” and of trusting “what the transexed say as the ultimate expert authority on whether or not this is a civil rights issue or a mental health issue.”
Now, anybody who’s familiar with my blog (like me, for example) must find that comment surprising, since I’ve never said any of those things. I’ve never written about trans issues on this blog at all. My only comments in the thread to that point were that that I recognize that transsexualism exists, that I think it may possibly be a natural variant of human behavior, and that (by implication, but without elaboration) I accept on general principles the right to live as the gender of one’s choosing. That’s it. So why was AnnaBelle suddenly attributing a whole bunch of other stuff to me?
Because she’s playing out the Trans Debate Script, familiar from countless idiotic blog brawls. In the Trans Debate Script, there are two and ONLY two positions:
1. Transwomen are self-mutilating psychotic privilege-saturated men who are both prisoners of the gender binary AND the shock troops of patriarchy, and anyone who says otherwise is an antifeminist misogynist tool. OR:
2. Transwomen are women, pure and simple, exactly like other women, and their acceptance is simply a civil rights issue, and anyone who says otherwise is a transphobic classist imperialist racist who is choking on her own noxious privilege and virulent hatred for people who look different.
And that’s it. You’re either one or the other; nothing in between. (And yeah, it’s hilarious that charges of “binarism” are made in this context.) If you’re not clearly position #1, then you must be position #2. Nothing else exists. And so the both sides line up and flail away, shrieking at each other and anybody in the way. GENDER BINARY!! MALE PRIVILEGE!! TRANSPHOBE!!
Pfhf.
I am no expert on trans issues, as I said; but I certainly have my opinions. I agree with feminists AND transadvocates on certain points, but vehemently disagree on others. More than that, I think both sides are simplistic and often wildly off-base. The politicization of the issue is particularly unhelpful. Transgenderism is a complex group of human behaviors, and much of what’s going on is poorly understood. But instead of embarking on a genuine investigation, people cram it into whatever political dialectic they’ve already constructed, or use existing intellectual concepts without ever stopping to wonder if maybe the toolkit isn’t up to the task.
I could write a 3000 word blog post with my own opinions on the various trans phenomena and issues, but it wouldn’t matter. The Trans Debaters would show up, scan to see if I match their preferred position, and then begin flinging poo.
“So, Violet, I see that you’re an…ANTIFEMINIST MISOGYNISTIC TOOL OF THE PATRIARCHY WHOSE PERSONAL INVESTMENT IN THE GENDER BINARY BLINDS YOU TO BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH”
and/or
“So, Violet, I see that you’re a…TYPICAL TRANSPHOBIC RADICAL FEMINIST CISWOMAN SUPREMACIST WHO’S SO INVESTED IN HER OWN CISPRIVILEGE THAT BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH”
Well, it would be entertaining, I guess.
-
Suzie says:
Maria, I think Pink News is very credible.
Ne Che: Huh? I’m a former journalist. I’ve also been raped. I would have LOVED the chance to tell my story from the rooftops, and I know other women who feel the same way. I’m not saying A’s victim should have been forced to talk to satisfy anyone’s voyeurism. But I’d like her to have an opportunity. Surely you get that women who are raped have different reactions, and some of us would not mind speaking publicly.
-
Hammer of the Dyke says:
I wrote my airplane example because I wanted to extract the elements of mental illness from the story. The trans aspects are muddying the waters, allowing what appears to be a miscarriage of justice as well as a reward for violent behavior, which has nothing to do with being transsexual.
No doubt, gender identity (when is it ever a binary, for Pete’s sake?) has some bizarre role in this individual’s manias, but that is secondary to the fact that A will murder and/or rape when thwarted. A depth psychoanalyst might say that A is willing to obliterate, through murder, the male archetype but wishes to violate and humiliate the female archetype, as Hades does to Persephone - incidentally breaking the mother-daughter bond as a source of Woman’s power, and claiming it for himself (and A is acting in the role of Hades, whatever the gender assumed). It is interesting to consider the case in these terms, but I am yet astonished that the manias of this individual are being rewarded without any expectation that work must be done to free the individual from harmful, dysfunctional behaviors. Once the individual achieves the goal of transformation, the manias will assume other forms related to the basic plot. Surgery will not cure the condition.
-
Zoe Brain says:
Just in case anyone is reading this and taking it on board as an established fact, please note that the theory of brain sex is purely hypothetical. There are very slight average physical differences between male and female brains, but no one knows for sure what if any behavior those differences map to. Nor are the physical differences such that a neurologist could even distinguish a male brain from a female brain at random.
Er… no.
Israeli scientists Reuwen and Anat Achiron have found that if you do a regular ultrasound examination when a woman is 26 weeks pregnant, you can distinguish a female brain from a male brain.
Source: Reuwen Achiron, Shlomo Lipitz, & Anat Achiron. Sex-related differences in the development of the human fetal corpus callosum: in utero ultrasonographic study. Prenatal Diagnosis, 2001, 21:116-120.This in utero study confirmed the findings of a previous anatomical study in which investigators examined the brains of babies which had died before birth.
Source: M. de Lacoste, R. Holloway, and D. Woodward, “Sex differences in the fetal human corpus callosum,” Human Neurobiology, 1986, 5(2):93-6.“fundamental gender differences exist in the structure of the human cerebral cortex.”
Source: Theodore Rabinowicz, Jean MacDonald-Comber Petetot, Peter Gartside, David Sheyn, Tony Sheyn, & Gabrielle de Courten-Myers, “Structure of the Cerebral Cortex in Men and Women,” Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology, January 2002, 61(1):46-57.As regards trans people:
“…the data implicate that transsexuality may be associated with sex-atypical physiological responses in specific hypothalamic circuits, possibly as a consequence of a variant neuronal differentiation.”
Source: Male-to-female transsexuals show sex-atypical hypothalamus activation when smelling odorous steroids. by Berglund et al Cerebral Cortex 2008 18(8):1900-1908;“The present findings of somatostatin neuronal sex differences in the BSTc and its sex reversal in the transsexual brain clearly support the paradigm that in transsexuals sexual differentiation of the brain and genitals may go into opposite directions and point to a neurobiological basis of gender identity disorder.”
Source: Male–to–female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus. Kruiver et al J Clin Endocrinol Metab (2000) 85:2034–2041“Solid evidence for the importance of postnatal social factors is lacking. In the human brain, structural diferences have been described that seem to be related to gender identity and sexual orientation.”
Source:
Sexual differentiation of the human brain: relevance for gender identity, transsexualism and sexual orientation. Swaab Gynecol Endocrinol (2004) 19:301–312.“Our study is the first to show a female brain structure in genetically male transsexuals and supports the hypothesis that gender identity develops as a result of an interaction between the developing brain and sex hormones”
Source: A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality. by Zhou et al Nature (1995) 378:68–70.“We propose that the sex reversal of the INAH3 in transsexual people is at least partly a marker of an early atypical sexual differentiation of the brain and that the changes in INAH3 and the BSTc may belong to a complex network that may structurally and functionally be related to gender identity.”
Source: A sex difference in the hypothalamic uncinate nucleus: relationship to gender identity. by Garcia-Falgueras et al Brain. 2008 Dec;131(Pt 12):3132-46.Etc Etc Etc.
-
Zoe Brain says:
Branjor says:
To correct the misinformation in #16, transsexualism is not an intersex condition.
Seminar S10 of the American Psychiatric Association’s Annual Meeting:
S10. The Neurobiological Evidence for Transgenderism
1. Brain Gender Identity Sidney W. Ecker, M.D.
*2. Transsexuality as an Intersex Condition Milton Diamond, Ph.D.*
3. Novel Approaches to Endocrine Treatment of Transgender Adolescents and Adults Norman Spack, M.D.http://pn.psychiatryonline.org.....ull/44/4/8
Re Kevin – Significant findings of Justice Richard Chisholm in respect of the expert medical evidence in that case as to the causation of transsexualism and as strongly affirmed by the Full Court on appeal
At paragraph [270]: ‘But I am satisfied that the evidence now is inconsistent with the distinction formerly drawn between biological factors, meaning genitals, chromosomes and gonads, and merely “psychological factors”, and on this basis distinguishing between cases of inter-sex (incongruities among biological factors) and transsexualism (incongruities between biology and psychology)’.At paragraph [272]: ‘In my view the evidence demonstrates (at least on the balance of probabilities) that the characteristics of transsexuals are as much “biological” as those of people thought of as inter-sex’.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/j.....Heading437
Definitions of the term “Intersex” vary. But if you include the one by Anne Fausto-Stirling in “sexing the body”, and the one used by ISNA and the UK Intersex Society of “a body neither wholly male nor wholly female”, then transsexuality is indeed one of the many Intersex comditions. It can be defined now as a somewhat masculinised neurology (in specific ways) in an otherwise mostly or completely feminised body, or the reverse.
This does not quote accord with the definition in the ICD-10 and DSM-IV-TR, as the first excludes anyone with any non-neurological intersex condition, and the second doesn’t define transsexuality at all - only GID when there is no other intersex condition, and GIDNOS if there is.
I’m quite happy to call it an intersex condition, but would also accept it as something else which is exactly the same except for the name, in order to distinguish it from non-neurological conditions.
I myself am intersexed, by the way. A protandrous dichogamous pseudohermaphrodite - meaning a biological woman born looking male, but who changed via natural causes later. Fortunately I have a female gender identity too. Some unfortunately do not, the same way that some people who are protogynous dichogamous pseudohermaphrodites due to 5alpha-reductase-2 deficiency (5alpha-RD-2) or 17beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-3 deficiency (17beta-HSD-3) may not have a male gender identity.
-
m Andrea says:
In response to #117: This is why you’re fabulous.
And yet, in “The Great Trans Debate” there is a basic point which the trans supporters would prefer to avoid, yet is considered absolutely mandatory in any other claim for civil rights. Normally, it’s considered the initial step, and nothing else can procede without it first being resolved. Or at least discussed and argued ad naseaum.
But they don’t want to discuss it, probably because at some level they do realize that there is no logical way in hell transgenderism can pass this initial test. So as an avoidance tactic they then resort to all sorts of manipulation, misdirection, and ad hominem attacks; a peculiar circumstance to which those of a more intellectually honest style are magically supposed to treat with respect.
But bullshit misdirection and avoidance tactics normally deserve the contempt response — which is why we end up with the crazed two-camp position that you described. Trans supporters still need to successfully pass the initial step which is a necessary prerequiste for any group who is claiming a civil right.
Is their basic premise valid? Do mentally healthy people really need to remove and replace existing body parts in order to feel complete?
The answer, logically, is a big fat NO.
-
ne che says:
Unfortunately, surgery is exactly where the psychoanalyst will go. Autographed. These individuals are victims of the medical profession.
-
LabRat says:
For what it’s worth, “are there structural brain differences between the sexes” and “what do they mean” are two completely different questions, and most of the purported answers proposed for the latter have been some grade-A bullshit.
-
Violet says:
Israeli scientists Reuwen and Anat Achiron have found that if you do a regular ultrasound examination when a woman is 26 weeks pregnant, you can distinguish a female brain from a male brain.
No, they most certainly did not find that. And the fact that you think they did provides an excellent example of how brain research is consistently misinterpreted.
What Achiron, Lipitz, & Achiron found was an average difference in the thickness of the fetal corpus callosum between males and females. Here’s a link to their paper:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.....8;SRETRY=0
And here’s the extract:
A cross-sectional study of pregnant women presenting for routine fetal ultrasonographic examination was conducted at the Obstetric Ultrasonographic Unit of the Chaim Sheba Medical Center to investigate inutero development of the fetal corpus callosum (CC) in relation to fetal gender. A total of 255 consecutive healthy fetuses of low-risk pregnancies between 16 and 36 weeks’ gestation were examined. Thickness and width of the anterior mid-body of the CC were measured in the mid-coronal plane, and length was measured in the mid-sagittal plane. Fetal gender was determined by an independent observer. Female fetuses had statistically significantly thicker CC than males for each gestational age. The mean±standard deviation (SD) CC thickness in females was 2.13±0.8 mm [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.98-2.28] while the mean±SD CC thickness in males was 1.8±0.5 mm (95% CI 1.70-1.89; p<0.01). The length and width of the CC during gestation did not differ significantly between the sexes. Corpus callosum size as a function of gestational age (GA) in both sexes was expressed by linear regression equations. The correlation coefficients r=0.93, r=0.61 and r=0.62 for length, width and thickness, respectively, in males and r=0.92, r=0.71 and r=0.72 in females were found to be statistically significant (p<0.01). The present data suggest that female fetuses have a thicker CC than males. These findings support previous studies suggesting sex dimorphism of human CC and raise the possibility that prenatal sex hormones may play a role in determining callosal development. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
I don’t know that this study has been replicated, but for now let’s just assume that the findings are good. This is what the researchers found: “Female fetuses had statistically significantly thicker CC than males for each gestational age.”
In other words, the range of values for female fetuses is centered on a higher average than the range of values for male fetuses. But the range overlaps. This means that a measure of CC thickness alone can’t tell you whether the brain belongs to a male or female.
And if anyone’s having trouble following that, here’s a demonstration:
Mystery Person X is hidden behind a curtain. This person is 5 feet 7 inches tall. That’s the only information you get. So: is Mystery Person X male or female?
There’s no way to know. Even though male humans are on average taller than female humans, the range of heights is overlapping.
-
Violet says:
Is their basic premise valid? Do mentally healthy people really need to remove and replace existing body parts in order to feel complete?
I really don’t think that’s the central premise of transsexualism. I’m not sure transsexulism has a central premise, since it’s a phenomenon, not a political movement. But if it did, it would probably be something like “it is possible to have an inner sense of one’s sexual identity that is at odds with one’s biological phenotype (or at least the parts of the phenotype we know about at this time).”
And of course, it is possible. That’s exactly what transsexuals seem to feel.
-
seattlegal says:
Violet said post #117
And that’s it. You’re either one or the other; nothing in between. (And yeah, it’s hilarious that charges of “binarism” are made in this context.) If you’re not clearly position #1, then you must be position #2. Nothing else exists. And so the both sides line up and flail away, shrieking at each other and anybody in the way. GENDER BINARY!! MALE PRIVILEGE!! TRANSPHOBE!!
Pfhf.
I am no expert on trans issues, as I said; but I certainly have my opinions. I agree with feminists AND transadvocates on certain points, but vehemently disagree on others. More than that, I think both sides are simplistic and often wildly off-base. The politicization of the issue is particularly unhelpful. Transgenderism is a complex group of human behaviors, and much of what’s going on is poorly understood. But instead of embarking on a genuine investigation, people cram it into whatever political dialectic they’ve already constructed, or use existing intellectual concepts without ever stopping to wonder if maybe the toolkit isn’t up to the task.
I could write a 3000 word blog post with my own opinions on the various trans phenomena and issues, but it wouldn’t matter. The Trans Debaters would show up, scan to see if I match their preferred position, and then begin flinging poo.
“So, Violet, I see that you’re an…ANTIFEMINIST MISOGYNISTIC TOOL OF THE PATRIARCHY WHOSE PERSONAL INVESTMENT IN THE GENDER BINARY BLINDS YOU TO BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH”
and/or
“So, Violet, I see that you’re a…TYPICAL TRANSPHOBIC RADICAL FEMINIST CISWOMAN SUPREMACIST WHO’S SO INVESTED IN HER OWN CISPRIVILEGE THAT BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH”
Well, it would be entertaining, I guess.
Wonderful set-up for violence, huh? ;)
-
Ne Che says:
So Violet. I see you call yourself a radical feminist, but seem unable to apply a radical feminist analysis to this discussion.
-
Kiuku says:
Violet I read some articles about how females generally develop quicker than males, giving them quite a head start, so I’m not surprised if it is true but calling it “male” brains and “female” brains is just setting it up for discrimination later. It’s a human brain that is just developing faster, and better, generally. Unfortunately, though females develop faster than men I think culture accounts for setting females back. The thing is, between full grown adults, there is no “male brain” and “female brain”. lol, but men wish there was.
The thing is, if there WAS a way to make men physically into women, there would be no war, or crime, or economy, and we would live happily ever after. Not because women are naturally that way, but because men are naturally not women, and psychologically cannot handle it.
-
Violet says:
So Violet. I see you call yourself a radical feminist, but seem unable to apply a radical feminist analysis to this discussion.
You realize this is hilarious. No, actually I suspect you don’t realize it.
-
Hammer of the Dyke says:
ne che says:
“Unfortunately, surgery is exactly where the psychoanalyst will go. Autographed. These individuals are victims of the medical profession.”I’m not sure what you are driving at. I spoke to a friend of mine, who is trained as a Jungian analyst, for her take on the story. What I wrote is basically what she conveyed to me. I find it interesting as an idea (you know, sometimes it’s good to hear things that we don’t know or agree with). In any case, she is a psychologist without exposure to medical training, if that’s ok with you.
I see from your comment to Violet that you wish to appoint yourself the one-and-only, true arbiter of radical feminism. Good luck with that, but I think you will find that others will disagree with you on many points. Perhaps you will come to know that there is value in hearing what other women think. Certainly, it costs nothing and may deepen understanding. But then, maybe my radical entertainment of ideas has disqualified me as well from the ranks of “True Radical Feminists.” Ah, well…now I will evaluate the statement “In Vino Veritas” on the scale of truly true, radical feminist purity. Come to me, you luscious purple beauty, you.
-
soopermouse says:
“My suggestion is that the state pay for his sex-change, then ship him to, say, Afghanistan or Saudia Arabia, where he can experience the joys of womanhood in all its glory.”
A bit late to the party, but one thing :
NO. Why would this person be rewarded with expensive elective surgery on my fucking taxes for sexual assault?
