Notices by PG (pg@spinster.xyz)

Whereas crime data exist for all other demographics—race, age, educational attainment, etc.—we are not systematically collecting or analyzing stats for trans offenders. Apparently, it’s too politically uncomfortable to call attention to transgender people as anything but victims. Any effort to delve into research on transgenderism and crime uncovers reports, white papers, law review essays, and media reporting—but all of it is focused exclusively on trans victimization. Such material prioritizes analytics such as the percentage of trans crime victims who were deadnamed in the press and how many were transwomen “of color.”

The focus on trans victimization is so powerful that media reporting and advocacy emphasize any suggestion—often unsubstantiated—that trans victims are the objects of hate crimes. But few reports actually record who the offenders are committing crimes against transgender individuals, and whether they are trans themselves.

A modest number of studies exists from outside the U.S. on transgender offending and indicate that transgender individuals tend to commit a dispropor-tionate amount of crime, violence, and sexual violence. A Swedish study conducted in 2011 found that “transsexual individuals were at increased risk of being convicted for any crime or violent crime after sex reassignment.” More specifically, transwomen had a significantly increased risk for committing crime and violent crime compared with biological women—but not compared to cis-men. Indeed, transwomen retain “a male pattern regarding criminality.”

Transmen, on the other hand, had higher crime and violent crime rates than women—about the same rates as biological men. In other words, women who “transition” commit crime at rates similar to men—who, in the general population, commit most of the lawbreaking and violence.

https://www.commentary.org/articles/hannah-meyers/trans-criminals-poor-policy/

I want to explain why I don’t prescribe hormones for people who identify as trans. I also want to explain my serious concerns about the way people who present with gender dysphoria are being treated. I also want to empower other GPs to think about what they are prescribing and why.

There appears to be a basic misunderstanding of the Equality Act 2010, which leads GPs to fear being accused of discrimination if they do not give these patients what they want. The Equality Act does not state this. Instead, it mandates that transexuals must not face discrimination and should not be treated differently due to their protected characteristic—gender reassignment."

A female patient in her twenties on testosterone presented at my surgery with urinary incontinence and vaginal atrophy. Vaginal atrophy occurs when the tissue in the wall of the vagina becomes thin and fragile, which can lead to pain and bleeding. The incontinence was caused by the effects of testosterone on the bladder and urethra – it was unable to function properly. The patient was in distress. Together these symptoms are known as urogenital atrophy.

A male patient in his twenties taking oestrogen and decapeptyl (also used to block puberty) had chronic widespread pain. As it was poorly controlled with medication he had been referred to the chronic pain clinic by a colleague. The pain was thought to be multifactorial. He was under psychiatry for depression and anxiety, as well as known autism and was a vulnerable patient. Having no guidelines or protocols to follow in general practice I turned to Google and found that patients who had medically transitioned were at higher risk of chronic pain. However, no mention of chronic pain had been noted in his most recent Gender Identity Clinic letter despite the BNF (medicines guidance) noting that a common or very common side effect of decapeptyl in men and women is joint disorders.

Testimony of a GP Who Will Not Affirm by Graham Linehan

A Message to You, GPs

Since revelations about the history of Wayne Couzens’ offending, flashing is being taken a little more seriously as a sex crime by media and politicians. But why has it taken the kidnap, rape and murder of a woman by a serving police officer for flashing to be seen as a problem as opposed to a joke? Double child killer Colin Pitchfork raped and strangled to death two 15-year-old girls in the 1980s, and when arrested, confessed to police that he had exposed his penis to more than 1,000 girls and women over the years. Pitchfork was paroled last year.

Feminist activist Sandra McNeill decided to research the effects of flashing on women for her Masters degree in I982. The timing was perfect: the Labour government had plans to decriminalise it. McNeill had been involved in the Women's Liberation Movement (WLM) since the 1970s and saw exposure as part of a continuum of male violence towards women. It should be noted that McNeil’s work from almost 40 years ago is still some of the only work that focuses from a feminist perspective on the effects of flashing on women.

By concentrating the victims’ experience, McNeill found that they routinely felt frightened, humiliated and degraded. The uncertainty as to what these men could do next means that women frequently think of rape and death.

Research among those convicted of serious sex offences shows that many had previously committed what were considered to be minor offences such as exposing or voyeurism. In one study it is estimated that 80 per cent of rapists began with non-contact behaviour. Not all those who expose are serious sex offenders, but there is a clear link between exposure and other sex crimes within a significant number of these men.

Flashing: Why is it treated as a joke? by Julie Bindel

When men expose their genitals to women and girls, what is the message? And the effect?

Scholars have often used Austen as a gateway to study earlier writers, but my initial explorations into these books were discouraging. It felt as if every time I turned a corner, I ran into a dead end. First, I turned to one of the pioneering academic monographs on the subject, Frank W. Bradbrook’s Jane Austen and Her Predecessors (1966), which included an entire chapter about “The Feminist Tradition” in the English novel that influenced Austen. I thought that title boded well. I was wrong. It immediately introduced the tradition as “not particularly distinguished.”

He categorically dismissed the novelists whom Austen had praised in her own works, such as Ann Radcliffe, Frances Burney, Charlotte Smith, and Maria Edgeworth: “Jane Austen turns inferior work by her predecessors and contemporaries to positive and constructive uses.” According to an authority like Bradbrook, this quest of mine had already been investigated and resolved: we call Jane Austen the first great woman writer in English…because she was.

But Austen herself had provided evidence contradicting that conclusion. Were these authorities suggesting that some of the favorite books of one of the greatest authors of all time were trash? Would an author of that caliber really have had such terrible taste?

#WomenWriters #WomensCreativity

https://lithub.com/jane-austens-forgotten-contemporaries-unearthing-a-legacy-of-systematic-literary-erasure/

I don’t pay any attention to the Oscars anymore. I haven’t even heard of most of the movies that were nominated last week. But I perked up when a man was nominated in the Best Actress category.

I won’t see this movie. I don’t care. I don’t care about drug dealers or deranged men who think they are women. Well I care but only because of how we celebrate them, rather than treat them as the mental patients that they are, in need of help and care — yes, but not to be treated as social justice warriors/heroes.

Men have played women before. Women have played men or “trans” people before.

Linda Hunt played a man in The Year of Living Dangerously and won an Oscar in 1982. In the women’s category. Because Hunt is a woman. Dustin Hoffman was nominated for a best actor Oscar in the 1983 awards for playing Tootsie, a man who pretends to be a woman to get acting parts. (Sounds like Gascón). Robin Williams played Mrs. Doubtfire, a crotchety English nanny, and got hired by his ex-wife to be their children’s babysitter. He was nominated for a Golden Globe in 1994. In the men’s category. Because Williams was a man. And lastly, perhaps the most salient example, Hilary Swank played Brandon Teena (a “trans identified” female) in Boys Don’t Cry and won an Oscar in 1999. In the women’s category. Because Hilary Swank is a woman.

Why does it matter that Gascón — a man — was nominated in the women’s category? Should there even be a men’s and a women’s category for best actors when there is no advantage (like in sports) for men vs women? Maybe there shouldn’t be. But there are. And if there are two separate categories, and there are actually fewer great roles for women than men, then women should win in women’s.

The Oscars by Jennifer Sey

Juan Carlos Gascón has been nominated in the Best Actress category for his role as a "trans-identied" drug dealer in the film "Emilia Pérez."

@Chronic-Yonic @eveluca I don't have the time or the energy to rail against the Gender Criticals who have posed in photos with, or make exception for, a "Pet Trans", but I will say here once - that I lose a certain amount of respect for them, and subsequently pay far less attention to anything they do or say. I pay absolutely NO attention to any of their feuds with "Ultras". Instead, I will watch WDI videos, especially those with Sheila Jeffreys, Julia Long, & the WDI crew, discussing Feminist & Lesbian lives & works, many of which I have missed, or were not aware of previously. This helps me stay at least mildly sane and woman-focused.

DAVID Hayton DOES NOT belong in Women's Spaces getting his PERV on, period. NO MEN in WOMEN'S SPACES. NO wrong-sex pronouns. NO exceptions (including the snipped & flipped post-ops), because once we let one MAN in, we're in the shades of grey zone. NO exceptions keep us safe, and it's clear & simple!

I'm not at all convinced that Genderism is on its way out. Our movies & TV shows have been prepping us to accept cross-dressing men, BDSM, etc. for decades. There has been some progress - we are allowed to speak up a bit more.

But consider this article: we have little influence in these arts. There are NO mainstream movies or TV shows that question how Genderism impacts women & children. Where is the movie about an AGP's emotional abuse of his wife? Where is the movie about a sexually-abused woman in a retreat terrified by encountering a cross-dressing manslab? Where's the movie about the detransitioner whose body has been so damaged she either can't have children or couldn't nurse her baby if she can?

(...And as much as I otherwise appreciate Emma Thompson, I must say here: "Badly done, Emma").

https://open.substack.com/pub/grahamlinehan/p/the-zombie-movement-still-stalking?r=dfyz&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false

A decade ago, “we just want to pee” was the gaslighting mantra of trans rights. Every man is allowed to pee in the men’s room. It should be up to men to better accommodate ‘gender nonconforming’ men in the men’s room rather than foisting them on women.

Since then, transgender ‘rights’ activists have revealed the full range of ‘rights’ they demand to an increasingly disturbed public: the right to cheat at sports, even beat up women in a boxing or MMA ring; the ‘right’ of men who assault and kill and rape women to ‘identify’ their way into women’s prisons; the ‘right’ to demand that children who would likely grow up to be gay or lesbian if left alone should instead be chemically and surgically altered; the ‘right’ to cancel and destroy and assault anyone who says “no” to them.

The paraphilic men who get the most thrill from being in women’s restrooms have always exhibited ego-dystonic arousal. Transgender propaganda has always called for violence against the unbeliever. This threat of violence is always rationalized as a legitimate response to the supposed ‘trans genocide’ that somehow takes place whenever a man who calls himself a woman is not allowed to pee wherever he wants.

https://www.thedistancemag.com/p/the-nancy-mace-effect

@ninapaley I love, love, loved my babies! I enjoyed them as toddlers, too. Then…they went to school, and ever so slowly, between peers & TV, parenting became more and more vexing & challenging. So…although I love my children very much, I highly commend any young people who prefer sticking with dogs, cats or other animal companions.

I don’t even want to imagine what parenting is like now, with smart phones & such. More & more I feel that many people regard children as an item to be checked off on their to-do list; cute little things to dress up.

I, too, respect both Harrington & Peterson, but don’t agree on this one. I think we have plenty of humans, and all too many have no homes & not enough food. As for the point that there will be fewer people to take care of the oldies - well, that “care”, (with the exception of a few cultures) has always been dicey.

There is nothing “enviable” about you.

“It was fun triggering you”. If this is your idea of “fun”, Spinster is not the place for you.

RT: https://spinster.xyz/objects/6084129b-4b05-4b2f-be4c-cf37eafb904d

I don’t vote considering only one issue. I’m really ANGRY @ Dems / “Progressives” for being bought by Big Pharma in order to promote Gender Ideology. I can’t blame anyone for wanting them to realize, by losing elections, that they’ve done the wrong thing by promoting it.

But… I’m on Social Security & a HUD grant. I can’t afford to vote for the party that wants to dismantle whatever is left of the “social safety net”. For example, I might not get my monthly benefit this next month because of Republicans in Congress holding up the Federal budget, and I won’t be alone in being put at risk. It’s scary.

Also, I care about our environment & the Dems are slightly better at preserving what’s left of our public lands & endangered species. Republicans have been bought by Big Oil, so it’s “drill, baby, drill”, no matter what.

I also consider Conservatives / Republicans to be unreliable allies, especially in terms of women’s interests. I do appreciate some of them speaking out against Gender Ideology, but I believe they are actually more against homosexuality than “trans”, because “gender” is the same as “sex” to them. Most hate same-sex marriage. As the profits from hormones & surgeries continue to rise, I think they will move toward the “trans the gay away” camp.

As in the past, I feel “politically homeless” & lack enthusiasm for most candidates.