Transwomen are not women - X (XY?)

[Rolfe]

The way things are going with the Tavistock, which bear in mind had the reputation for being relatively cautious compared to private providers such as Gender GP, does not bode well for those keen to maintain that all is well in all sectors of the trans trade. The whistleblower in the US, and the fact that Finland has rowed back from prescribing puberty blockers to minors despite having passed a self-ID law for adults - not to mention developments in Sweden where a similar row-back has taken place - indicate clearly that doubts and reservations about medical and surgical transition in minors are not confined to England. (Ireland is starting to have kittens about the Tavi as well, because a lot of Irish children were referred there.)

I would have thought that someone wedded to the trans project and extremely keen to present adult transition as absolutely hunky-dory might have thought about distancing himself from the paediatric situation. "I always said that possible harms to children were a consideration and look, I've been proved right. It's adult transition that reflects the valid lived experience."

I don't think anyone is going that road though.

 

[d4m10n]

Also, I wonder how we get from having a "valid condition" to being put on puberty blockers.

Surgeon: Your condition is valid; let's remove all the body parts you find superfluous.

Patient: I don't need a diagnosis?

Surgeon: what part of "valid" is so hard to understand?


Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[Elaedith]

The way things are going with the Tavistock, which bear in mind had the reputation for being relatively cautious compared to private providers such as Gender GP, does not bode well for those keen to maintain that all is well in all sectors of the trans trade. The whistleblower in the US, and the fact that Finland has rowed back from prescribing puberty blockers to minors despite having passed a self-ID law for adults - not to mention developments in Sweden where a similar row-back has taken place - indicate clearly that doubts and reservations about medical and surgical transition in minors are not confined to England. (Ireland is starting to have kittens about the Tavi as well, because a lot of Irish children were referred there.)

I would have thought that someone wedded to the trans project and extremely keen to present adult transition as absolutely hunky-dory might have thought about distancing himself from the paediatric situation. "I always said that possible harms to children were a consideration and look, I've been proved right. It's adult transition that reflects the valid lived experience."

I don't think anyone is going that road though.

I think LJ's stated position is that the issues with medical transition of minors are just inevitable 'mistakes' due to the existence of 'trans kids' only recently being acknowledged as 'valid' (which is, in itself, ignorant nonsense). His position is wrong. The problems with transition of minors arise directly from the subordination of science and medicine to ideology, explaining 'trans identity' in terms of ideology rather than science, and using the types of spurious parallels between gender identity and sexual orientation that LJ likes to exploit. They are also the direct result of suppressing free speech and questioning of ideology within academia and clinical settings by inflicting punitive consequences on anyone questioning the ideology, something which LJ also likes to endorse.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh bloody hell. ANOTHER one.

New York nanny who killed two children sentenced to life in prison without parole

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-new-york-nanny-killed-two-children-sentenced

Now of course it's obviously only fair to point out that not all ciswomen stab to death 6-year-old and 4-year-old children in their care. It would be absolutely wrong to make that sort of claim. But you've got to ask yourself: should parents really take the chance of leaving ciswomen in charge of their kids, if this is what might happen?

Once again, you reveal the pattern difference between men and women. Women don't go after strangers, men do. And in the context of this thread, that makes all the difference.

 

[Rolfe]

Actual crime stats (correlated with census data), mentioned a few times but never commented on.

In England and Wales, transwomen are imprisoned for sex offences at over 565 times the rate of women. In fact there are almost as many transwomen imprisoned for sexual offences (92) as there are women imprisoned for the same category of offences (103), despite the enormous difference in the size of the respective populations. (Almost all women convicted of sex offences have offended against a child victim who is known to them. They are offences committed within the family. The number of women convicted of sex offences against adult strangers isn't going to make it out of single figures.)

Transwomen are in fact imprisoned for sex offences at about five times the rate of other men. You're far safer with a man who isn't LARPing womanhood than you are with one who is.

I never seem to get any traction with these statistics.

Oh look there are 103 women in prison for sex offences. There are only 92 transwomen in prison for sex offences. Not looking good for the women, is it, that eleven more of them are sex criminals than transwomen? LOOK AT ALL THESE WOMEN SEX OFFENDERS!!

Except, the total number of women in the population is about 30 million. The total number of transwomen in the population (again according to the census) is 48,000. That's where the discrepancy arises. Transwomen as a group are extraordinary likely to be sex criminals. One in 522 transwomen in England and Wales - almost 0.2% of them - is in jail for committing some sort of sex attack.

In addition, if we drill down into the nature of the offences, women are overwhelmingly likely to have been convicted of an offence against a child, a child they are responsible for. These are crimes within the family. Also, they are frequently convicted as part of a joint enterprise with a male criminal, often someone they are in a relationship with - think Fred and Rosemary West, or Ian Brady and Myra Hindley.

The female sex offender who attacks a stranger, solo, pretty much doesn't exist. Meanwhile the offences transwomen are convicted of are very much male pattern behaviour. Stalking and grooming children who are not part of their own families. Attacking strangers, including in public toilets. Rape, either of a stranger or a woman they have formed a relationship with.

Given the small number of transwomen in the population they are responsible for an absolutely astonishing proportion of sex crimes. Sure, other men commit sex crimes at a pretty high rate too. There are 11,660 men in prison for sex crimes. But there are 29.5 million men in the population. As noted above, there are only 48,000 transwomen, which means that transwomen commit sex crimes at five times the rate of other men.

This is the background to highlighting the distressingly frequent reports of transwomen being accused or convicted of sex crimes. For such a tiny population, especially a population we're always being told are marginalised and vulnerable, they should hardly trouble the scorer. Instead they are all over the newspapers practically every other week.

 

[LondonJohn]

I wonder what proportion of those 92 were transgender at the time they committed their offence?

And yes, what I'm saying here is I am fairly certain that a reasonably high proportion of transwomen in prisons a) only transitioned once they'd been charged or convicted, and b) are not sincere in their claims to transgender identity. Incidentally, I'd wager that most of the insincere transwomen in prison are not doing so with the hope of being able to further offend within the women's estate - rather they're doing so because they are aware that they're likely to have an "easier life", with a single cell and less risk of being violently assaulted.

But anyhow, even if one were to believe that every one of those 92 is sincere in their transgender identity.... there are still only two important questions to be addressed:

1) What empirical evidence is there that ciswomen prisoners have suffered materially within women's prisons on account of transwomen being placed in those prisons?

Well... we know that as a general rule, transwomen prisoners with convictions for violence or sexual violence against ciswomen will not be placed in the women's estate.

And

https://www.theguardian.com/society...onvictions-in-female-jails-lawful-rules-judge


2) Why are 99.98% of transwomen being tarred with the Reefer Madness brush?

 

[Rolfe]

Another way in which transwomen aren't women.

This link is only a transwoman talking and displaying some medical supplies, but it's still fairly disgusting. TMI, frankly, and it says something about this guy's exhibitionist tendencies that he records this stuff and puts it on the internet, but he did it.

https://twitter.com/Thewokeexposed/status/1624947860969074691

He says he has a "brand new vagina". Well, he has a surgically created cavity in his pelvis "that wasn't there before". And as an ear piercing will heal up if you don't force it to stay open, his surgically created cavity - which leads to nothing, remember - will heal up if left to its own devices. So four times a day he has to shove some sort of blue dildo inside himself. The frequency of doing this will decrease with time until after a year he hopes to be down to once a week. But at the moment "it's very time-consuming" and his life revolves around it.

But it gets worse. The discharge from this open wound is so voluminous that he has to wear something he calls an "adult diaper" to deal with it. He goes through about four a day. (What this smells like is not recorded.) But hey, "I'm happy! I'm healthy!"

He may be happy, but that ain't healthy.

While a woman's vagina, like any other body part, can develop problems or become infected, you know what? We don't have to do this. Our vaginas look after themselves. They're self-cleaning, self-maintaining, and they certainly don't heal up if left to their own devices. If we have a discharge that needs four nappy pads a day to soak it up, we know there's something seriously wrong and we get medical help.

I'm going to say it. This is disgusting. It's offensive. It's not something that should be celebrated. It's something that should be done only in the most extreme circumstances, if at all. And it's certainly not something that should be accepted as turning a man into a woman. Surgically remove a guy's penis and testicles and create an open wound in his groin, and you think that's a woman? Srsly?

 

[Roboramma]

Pretty big news that I don't think has been posted in this thread yet (I hadn't been keeping up with it, and after skimming the pages that I'd missed it didn't look like it had been covered:

A woman working a pediatric gender clinic (which among other things gives puberty blockers to trans teens), has come out with accusations about the poor state of care and general bad decision making going on there.

https://www.thefp.com/p/i-thought-i-was-saving-trans-kids\

During the four years I worked at the clinic as a case manager—I was responsible for patient intake and oversight—around a thousand distressed young people came through our doors. The majority of them received hormone prescriptions that can have life-altering consequences—including sterility.

I left the clinic in November of last year because I could no longer participate in what was happening there. By the time I departed, I was certain that the way the American medical system is treating these patients is the opposite of the promise we make to “do no harm.” Instead, we are permanently harming the vulnerable patients in our care.

An example of such harms:

How little patients understood what they were getting into was illustrated by a call we received at the center in 2020 from a 17-year-old biological female patient who was on testosterone. She said she was bleeding from the vagina. In less than an hour she had soaked through an extra heavy pad, her jeans, and a towel she had wrapped around her waist. The nurse at the center told her to go to the emergency room right away.

We found out later this girl had had intercourse, and because testosterone thins the vaginal tissues, her vaginal canal had ripped open. She had to be sedated and given surgery to repair the damage. She wasn’t the only vaginal laceration case we heard about.

ETA: Potentially of interest also is her sworn affidavit:
https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/2-07-2023-reed-affidavit---signed.pdf

During my time at the Center, I personally witnessed Center healthcare providers lie to
the public and to parents of patients about the treatment, or lack of treatment, and the
effects of treatment provided to children at the Center. I witnessed staff at the Center
provide puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to children without complete informed
parental consent and without an appropriate or accurate assessment of the needs of the
child. I witnessed children experience shocking injuries from the medication the Center
prescribed. And I saw the Center make no attempt or effort to track adverse outcomes of
patients after they left the Center.

 

[Rolfe]

I think that one has been mentioned already, but it kind of got swamped with all the news about the Tavi. It's the one I meant when I said that the US case (I think it's Colorado?) among others showed that this wasn't just confined to England.

It certainly deserved further discussion. This woman is a lesbian married to a transman. She obviously isn't "transphobic". She was on board until she saw what was actually happening.

 

[Elaedith]

I think that one has been mentioned already, but it kind of got swamped with all the news about the Tavi. It's the one I meant when I said that the US case (I think it's Colorado?) among others showed that this wasn't just confined to England.

It certainly deserved further discussion. This woman is a lesbian married to a transman. She obviously isn't "transphobic". She was on board until she saw what was actually happening.

Unfortunately this didn't appear in a mainstream publication. When the NTY ran a story on puberty blockers recently, 'Science Based Medicine' quickly sprung into action, getting their now regular guest blogger who runs a gender affirming clinic to do a piece rubbishing the article. It will be interesting to see what happens if more stories do start appearing in mainstream papers in the US. At some point, are they going to realise they messed up?

 

[Rolfe]

The more I find out about what is going on, the more appalled I get.

I belong to a profession where it is absolutely routine to interfere surgically with the healthy genital organs of our patients. What we do is relatively straightforward. Simple castration, removing the testicles but usually leaving the scrotum in situ. Removing ovaries and uterus is a lot more invasive, but it's still a clean operation, leaving the vagina untouched, except that the cervix now goes nowhere. These are do-it-and-forget-it operations, with a very low rate of complications and no aftercare beyond immediate wound healing.

And yet as a profession we hair-shirt about this. Is it ethical to perform "sexual mutilation" on animals? How can we reduce the amount of surgery we do? Male pigs are now not routinely castrated at all. Rearing bulls rather than bullocks is being tried. Learned papers are written discussing the benefits of pet neutering to the animal itself, as well as regards the avoidance of unwanted puppies and kittens. We constantly try to justify what we're doing and interrogate the ethics.

Against this background I find what is being done to human beings to be entirely abhorrent. No vet would interfere with a penis unless it was medically unavoidable. I mean, seriously, just don't go there. Nobody would remove healthy mammary tissue. And the idea of constructing a surgical open wound in a male animal's perineum and pelvis, or transplanting flesh from elsewhere to make a non-functioning simulacrum of a penis? It is frankly revolting to me.

And yet human beings are being mutilated like this in an attempt to address psychological issues. What on earth has the medical profession come to? And don't tell me "that's what the patient wants". People want things that are not in their best interests all the time, and most people have absolutely no idea how serious and how disfiguring these sugeries are.

 

[Roboramma]

I think that one has been mentioned already, but it kind of got swamped with all the news about the Tavi. It's the one I meant when I said that the US case (I think it's Colorado?) among others showed that this wasn't just confined to England.

It certainly deserved further discussion. This woman is a lesbian married to a transman. She obviously isn't "transphobic". She was on board until she saw what was actually happening.

Thanks! I guess I missed it while skimming the last 6 or 7 seven pages.

It does seem to be a story worth considering. Real harm is being done to these kids.

 

[Rolfe]

It still hasn't hit you that your views on this issue are completely contrary to current scientific and medical understanding, has it? You can even write something like this, thinking that putting quotation marks around 'Science Based Medicine' somehow magically solves the problem for you. Isn't it strange what extremist ideology (especially within a toxic echo chamber) can do to rational thought?

I think maybe the quotation marks around 'Science Based Medicine' are an indication that it is the title of a publication, similar to the way I put Sunday Times in italics.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think maybe the quotation marks around 'Science Based Medicine' are an indication that it is the title of a publication, similar to the way I put Sunday Times in italics.

Fair enough (though I would hope the title is actually written "Science-Based Medicine"). Anyhow, I think it's pretty clear what the philosophy of people connected with a publication called "Science-Based Medicine" is. It's probably not about pseudoscience or reactionary bigotry, for example.

 

[Roboramma]

Yeah, it's a pretty good indicator. Interesting that you appear to think otherwise (which of course is a fundamental symptom of the affliction). I don't think I've ever had Proud Boys or the British National Party ever show up to endorse and co-platform any cause I believe in.

Interesting.
I wouldn't know if they endorsed anything I support because I don't actually know anything about what they do or don't think.

But in general I try to look at each issue on its merits rather than checking to see what people I dislike think about it first.

I expect that there are one or two things I would agree with most groups about. I'm not a feminist, but I agree with feminists about a lot of things. I'm not a libertarian, but I agree with libertarians about a lot of things, I'm not an environmentalist*, but I agree with environmentalists about a lot of things. I'm not a communist, but I agree with communists about a lot of things. Etc. The fact that there may be one or two things that I agree with any particular group about doesn't concern me at all.

The obvious Godwin here is "Hitler being a vegetarian doesn't mean vegetarianism is bad".

*For many years I identified with that label, but I find myself at odds with so much of the environmentalist movement that I don't think it really applies to me anymore.

 

[Elaedith]

Interesting.
I wouldn't know if they endorsed anything I support because I don't actually know anything about what they do or don't think.

But in general I try to look at each issue on its merits rather than checking to see what people I dislike think about it first.

I expect that there are one or two things I would agree with most groups about. I'm not a feminist, but I agree with feminists about a lot of things. I'm not a libertarian, but I agree with libertarians about a lot of things, I'm not an environmentalist*, but I agree with environmentalists about a lot of things. I'm not a communist, but I agree with communists about a lot of things. Etc. The fact that there may be one or two things that I agree with any particular group about doesn't concern me at all.

The obvious Godwin here is "Hitler being a vegetarian doesn't mean vegetarianism is bad".

*For many years I identified with that label, but I find myself at odds with so much of the environmentalist movement that I don't think it really applies to me anymore.

Same here. I try to examine every issue based on evidence. It just turns out that in the past my conclusions tend to align politically with a moderate left position on most issues. Making up your mind based on deciding what your 'tribe' believes or distancing yourself from anything associated with outgroups is incompatible with scepticism, and represents a form of lazy, heuristic thinking (what Kahneman called System 2 thinking).

It may make sense to people who are more concerned with ingroup social status, image, and self-promotion than with truth, however.

 

[Rolfe]

I wonder what proportion of those 92 were transgender at the time they committed their offence?

And yes, what I'm saying here is I am fairly certain that a reasonably high proportion of transwomen in prisons a) only transitioned once they'd been charged or convicted, and b) are not sincere in their claims to transgender identity. Incidentally, I'd wager that most of the insincere transwomen in prison are not doing so with the hope of being able to further offend within the women's estate - rather they're doing so because they are aware that they're likely to have an "easier life", with a single cell and less risk of being violently assaulted.

But anyhow, even if one were to believe that every one of those 92 is sincere in their transgender identity.... there are still only two important questions to be addressed:

1) What empirical evidence is there that ciswomen prisoners have suffered materially within women's prisons on account of transwomen being placed in those prisons?

Well... we know that as a general rule, transwomen prisoners with convictions for violence or sexual violence against ciswomen will not be placed in the women's estate.

And

https://www.theguardian.com/society...onvictions-in-female-jails-lawful-rules-judge

2) Why are 99.98% of transwomen being tarred with the Reefer Madness brush?

This is not the argument you think it is.

First of all, a large part of this discussion is a critique of self-identification, where the simple declaration by a man is taken as all the proof that's needed that he is a transwoman, and it's transphobic to question that. You seem to be suggesting that some men are not sincere when they make this declaration. You do realise that's transphobic? (And the dilemma on whose horns Nicola Sturgeon has so expertly impaled herself.) If not every declaration of a trans identity is valid, how do we tell the difference?

Second, people often do things for more than one reason. Maybe the easier régime of a woman's prison is attractive to some men, but then the presence of women there is also likely to be attractive. These are, almost by definition, not nice men.

So, let's assume you are right, and that some of these "transwomen" are simply at it. Actually, I agree with you about this. But then I'm allowed to think that, because I'm transphobic anyway. Let's take the figures for the Scottish prison population, because we do have figures for that. Hey, you're right! Nearly half the transwomen in the Scottish prison system only discovered their inner feminine essence after being charged with the offence for which they are imprisoned.

Bit of a riddie for Nicola Sturgeon, that one.

So, on these figures, if we assume that only the transwomen who were living as transwomen before their offences are "true trans" (whatever that is), and we can discount the others, where does that leave our figures? Oh yes, much better. Now transwomen only commit sex offences at 283 times the rate of women. And at two-and-a-half times the rate of other men.

As for the evidence that women suffer when males are places in their prison estate? Have you been living under a rock? Have you never heard of "Karen" White, convicted of assaulting a woman in prison with "her penis"? The articles discussing the risk of women prisoners becoming pregnant while in prison? The testimonies of women released from prison revealing their fear and disgust at having to share intimate spaces with large intact men who often had erections? Most recently Amanda, who went to the prison health service and asked for a contraceptive coil because she was so concerned she might be raped by one of the two transwomen with appalling histories of violence and abuse (including of women) who were only a flimsy shower curtain away from her?

Adam Bryson was convicted of two counts of rape, but he was immediately taken to the women's prison because he was wearing a silly wig and calling himself Isla - bear in mind that decision was only reversed because of public outcry. Bear in mind also Andrew Burns, perhaps the most violent prisoner in Scotland, who had petitioned multiple time to be transferred to a women's prison and had had that request granted, despite having stalked a 13 year old girl. That transfer was only halted because the Bryson case blew up.

Several pages back I listed the male prisoners in Cornton Vale towards the end of last year. To a man they were violent offenders, several with convictions for murder, and several with convictions for violence against women.

Incarcerated women are terrified of these men. They're big ("Katie" Dolatowski, convicted of two sex offences against girls, is six feet five) and they're aggressive, and a lot of these women have a history of being the victims of assault and domestic abuse. The one upside to being in prison is that there, there are no men to harrass them. Except there are.

 

[Shepherd]

Here is a very good 2 hour long Jordan Peterson interview with a young woman detransitioner from the U.S. by the name of Chloe Cole. She tells of how she went on puberty blockers and testosterone at the age of 13, had a double mastectomy at the age of 15, and then at the age of 16 decided it was all a terrible mistake.

Now as a young adult she says she would like to have a child some day but doesn't really know if that's still possible. She certainly does know, however, that if she can have one she won't be breastfeeding it. She also is apparently struggling with sexual dysfunction at 18. It seems she is in the process of suing the medical people who did this to her.

It's actually kind of difficult to watch because she as a confused young child, who probably just had some autism issues, got led down this path by, I would have to say, some very irresponsible people.

I believe Jordan Peterson says in the interview that studies indicate that about 90% of those struggling with gender issues as children grow out of it and accept their biological sex, though most ultimately identify as homosexual.

"Detransition: The Wounds That Won't Heal | Chloe Cole | EP 319"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6O3MzPeomqs

 

[Ziggurat]

I wonder what proportion of those 92 were transgender at the time they committed their offence?

And yes, what I'm saying here is I am fairly certain that a reasonably high proportion of transwomen in prisons a) only transitioned once they'd been charged or convicted, and b) are not sincere in their claims to transgender identity.

No ****, Sherlock.

And yet, the TRA position is that this isn't possible. If someone declares that they are trans, then by definition they are trans. So I'm afraid you've already dipped your toe into "transphobic ideology" by even questioning their "valid lived identity".

Come on in, the water's fine. Self ID is bull ****, might as well make your acceptance of that fact official.

Well... we know that as a general rule, transwomen prisoners with convictions for violence or sexual violence against ciswomen will not be placed in the women's estate.

Do we know that? Then why does it keep happening?

 

[Rolfe]

Here is a very good 2 hour long Jordan Peterson interview with a young woman detransitioner from the U.S. by the name of Chloe Cole. She tells of how she went on puberty blockers and testosterone at the age of 13, had a double mastectomy at the age of 15, and then at the age of 16 decided it was all a terrible mistake.

Now as a young adult she says she would like to have a child some day but doesn't really know if that's still possible. She certainly does know, however, that if she can have one she won't be breastfeeding it. She also is apparently struggling with sexual dysfunction at 18. It seems she is in the process of suing the medical people who did this to her.

It's actually kind of difficult to watch because she as a confused young child, who probably just had some autism issues, got led down this path by, I would have to say, some very irresponsible people.

I believe Jordan Peterson says in the interview that studies indicate that about 90% of those struggling with gender issues as children grow out of it and accept their biological sex, though most ultimately identify as homosexual.

"Detransition: The Wounds That Won't Heal | Chloe Cole | EP 319"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6O3MzPeomqs

I watched it. She had a sudden realisation during a biology class that she had made a terrible mistake. The teacher was covering human reproduction, and explaining the hormonal basis for mother-child bonding that occurs during breast-feeding. Prolactin-mediated I think. About the rush of tenderness and love that invokes.

Chloe, aged 16, had already had a double mastectomy. She had already denied herself this experience before she even knew what it was.

I don't often watch long videos about this topic, but I watched that. It was heartbreaking. But you know what's going to happen now, don't you Shepherd? Jordan Peterson, who interviewed Chloe so sentitively and in so doing brought out in minute detail the deficiencies of the practitioners who set her on that destructive and mutilating path, will be denounced as a right-wing bigot, and everything he says on this or any other subject rejected.