So, how do we distinguish?

A rapist and paedophile who was transferred to a women’s prison after claiming to be female and assaulted four inmates there made no more effort to be a woman than wearing wigs and dresses, former neighbours say.

40 thoughts on “So, how do we distinguish?”

  1. Well, we already know how to distinguish:

    “To be legally recognised as a transgender woman, a person must have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria and lived as a woman for two years.

    Friends said White was never diagnosed. They claim she was a drag artist in Manchester not transgender.

    The Prison Service said: “We apologise sincerely for the mistakes in this case.””

    It seems the prison service dropped the ball.

  2. Look at it from the point of view of the Prison Service. Who gives them more grief and hassle? (1) Organised political groups of hardcore nuts backed up by 100% sympathetic media coverage from the Establishment media, or (2) victims of their fuckups and the general public?

    The latter don’t even register on the scale.

  3. The prison service and indeed the state generally ought only to differentiate on the basis of biological sex, rather than ‘gender’.

    If any of Britain’s handful* of genuinely intersex people commits a crime, we can just flip a coin or something…

    * I am aware that some people argue the number of intersex people in the population is vastly higher than is generally realised. But they can fuck off.

  4. The church have the same problem with “pew-jumpers“. How can you tell if someone is genuinely a Christian?

    New admissions rules for Church of England schools will weed out parents who pretend to be Christians to beat other families to sought-after places.

    Schools will be expected to save 15 per cent of places for local children living nearby but should allocate the rest according to “objective” tests of involvement with the church.

    Anecdotal evidence abounds of parents making sudden conversions to Christianity in the months before their children change schools and attempting to play an ostentious role in parish affairs.

    Some church schools allowed parents to win “points” by attending services regularly and taking on extra responsibilities such as flower-arranging and hosting coffee mornings.

    The new guidelines discourage points systems and instead urge schools to apply three tests to applicants hoping to win places on grounds of their commitment to the faith.

    If oversubscribed schools require further tie-break criteria, they should in future consider resorting to lotteries or judging by distance to the school gates to avoid any whiff of “covert selection”.

    Parents would be required to gain two signatores from clergy or church officials to back up their claims, as well as evidence their child has been baptised.

    Substitute “woman” for “Christian” and “prison” (or “toilet”) for “school”, and you’ve got essentially the same story!

    How many Christians are there? How can you tell if someone is a Christian, and entitled to all the privileges being a Christian gets you? (The 26 ‘Lords Spiritual’ get to rule this country purely on that basis, for example.) There’s no brain scan you can do! No objective scientific test to distinguish Christian from atheist. You can’t do a blood test to detect ‘Christian blood’. All you can do is ask them ‘Are you a Christian?’ and take their word for it, and observe how they behave. But there’s nothing there that can’t be faked. (How do most middle-class middle-Englanders score on “love thy neighbours”, for example? Do the Popes and Bishops in their palaces full of gold crosses and priceless art treasures take seriously that bit about camels and the eyes of needles?) We have absolutely *zero* scientific evidence that anyone is now or has ever been a Christian! How do we know that ‘Christianity’ is even real?!

    Difficult, isn’t it?

  5. “To be legally recognised as a transgender woman”

    That would not eliminate the risk of putting a man in a women’s prison.

    How ’bout the state rush up his surgery? He’s still to be in prison. He made his choice.

  6. “How ’bout the state rush up his surgery?”

    You mean, you can skip all the queues and waiting lists and consultations and trial periods and get surgery immediately, right now, paid for by the state, and all you have to do is commit a serious crime? Cool!

    🙂

  7. “The church have the same problem with “pew-jumpers“. ”

    But they don’t have the same problem, do they? Pew jumpers aren’t raping the congregation. And whether one wishes to be a christian really is a matter of choice. Unlike which sex you’re born as.

    As usual, NiV, your argument depends on the acceptance there is such a thing as a “transexual”. If one doesn’t accept there is, there’s no argument necessary.

  8. Intersex. There is a much larger %age of the population are genetically intersex as opposed to the vary rare physically intersex. Iirc, most genetic intersex express phenotypically as male.

    How that affects how they express “gender” as opposed to “sex”, I have no information.

  9. “How ’bout the state rush up his surgery?”

    You mean, you can skip all the queues and waiting lists and consultations and trial periods and get surgery immediately, right now, paid for by the state, and all you have to do is commit a serious crime? Cool!

    Is MtF transition surgery that difficult?

    Surely it can be done quickly and cheaply by anyone with a sharp knife or a meat cleaver?

  10. The reality is that the organised left behind the trannies needs to be smashed.,

    After that all the weirds will wander off into the sunset muttering.

  11. “As usual, NiV, your argument depends on the acceptance there is such a thing as a “transexual”.”

    No it doesn’t. Not in this case. By forming an analogy between gender dysphoria and Christian belief, I’m modelling it using a non-biological, culturally-acquired, and obviously nutty belief system. I’m choosing (temporarily, for rhetorical purposes) to skip all the arguments about its objective biological reality and take as a premise that it’s just a belief, like Christian belief is. In comparing it to the obviously-false belief system of Christianity, we set aside entirely the question of whether it’s actually true, and ask only how you can tell if someone genuinely believes it’s true. So, the questions then are: does Christian belief “exist” independently of whether a person claims to believe? Is it logically possible that somebody could lie about it? (The church schools clearly think so.) And if so, how can we test for it in cases where people may be motivated to lie?

    It simply points out that the methods used by the transgender and Christians to prove they exist are essentially the same. If you reject the validity of one argument, then you must reject the validity of the other.

    You can consistently hold the position that *neither* exists, or you can consistently hold the position that *both* exist – but to hold the position that one definitely exists and not the other, you have to identify an objective means of identification besides asking them.

    Serious question: Is the Pope Catholic? Bearing in mind that he loses himself a sweet gig if he admits he’s not, how can you tell?

    And if you’re going to accept “Because he says so” in one case and not the other, you’re being hypocritical.

    “And whether one wishes to be a christian really is a matter of choice.”

    You’re a believer in Doxastic Voluntarism? How do you get round the usual philosophers’ arguments that it’s impossible? Or are you saying you don’t need reasons, you just need to choose to believe in it?

    And more to the point, if it really is simply a matter of choice, what the hell is the Church doing trying to develop objective tests for it? A parent *says* to the school that they’re religious – they’ve *chosen* to do so – that’s the end of the story, isn’t it?

  12. In comparing it to the obviously-false belief system of Christianity

    Obviously false?

    Which part? The general philosophy? The facts? Which facts?

  13. In comparing it to the obviously-false belief system of Christianity

    Obviously-false? To whom? You?

    3/10 – fails to show workings.

  14. “Obviously false? Which part?”

    That’s obvious!

    Tch! You want to claim your beliefs about transgenderism are ‘obvious’ and therefore don’t need backing up with evidence or argument, but object when I pull the same trick? For shame!

  15. And stating that men and women are different is an easily observable fact.

    Stating a belief is false requires explanation as I can’t observe your thoughts from my computer

  16. yes, mentally different. Determined by observing behaviours. similar to determining air flow by looking at trees.

    Watch the behaviour of this “woman”. Seems like a man to me…
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgQy70_LPS4

    Nice deflection though. You still haven’t expanded on your point about Christianity being false.

    False how? Which parts? Facts? General philosophy?

  17. A very long argument, NiV. Which can be disposed of in a couple of lines.
    Your pew jumpers wish to join the group label themselves christians. So it’s at their discretion whether the interlopers are accepted as christians. Your transvestite wishes to join the group society as a whole considers to be women. The consensus amongst society as a whole is they ain’t. You are, as ever, outvoted.

  18. “yes, mentally different. Determined by observing behaviours.”

    Thanks. That answers Tim’s headline question, which is what I was leading up to.

    “Your pew jumpers wish to join the group [who] label themselves christians.”

    By labelling themselves Christians, they are by definition members of ‘the group who label themselves Christians’. This is taking the definition to be: “you are if you say you are” – which I thought was the definition you was objecting to (and which the church schools definitely are).

    How do you know that the group the pew-jumpers wish to join are “Christians”? How do you know anyone is, from the outside?

    “The consensus amongst society as a whole is they ain’t.”

    The majority view amongst society as a whole is they are – as I’ve demonstrated numerous times. Thet’s why our democratically-elected representatives modified the law as it did.

    Your little group doesn’t constitute “society as a whole”. Not any more.

  19. Thanks. That answers Tim’s headline question, which is what I was leading up to.

    It is part of the way. Not exclusively the only way, nor is it sufficient. It is indicative of mental state and health.
    It is cheaper and easier than your previously stated MRI scans of the brain.
    The physical still needs to be assessed.

    Got a dick?
    Off to the male prison you go.
    Don’t want to go to male prison because you think you’re a woman?
    Chop your dick off. Simples.

  20. How do you distinguish? You have different rules for law abiding citizens than for criminals – I thought that was the point in prisons in the first place. I also thought that, in the vast majority of cases, rapists and paedophiles in male prisoners were kept segregated or in solitary for their own safety. I see no issue in the same individuals, if transferred to a female prison, being kept segregated or in solitary for the safety of the rest of the prison population. It’s not rocket science – and the cost would be the same or greater segregating them in a male prison.

  21. NiV

    What would you do with a bloke like the one on the video I linked to?

    One that dresses in women’s clothes, insists on being called a woman’s name, and is adamant they are a woman (despite having a penis) but still exhibits a lot of male characteristics like aggression and intimidation behaviour.

    Which prison would you send this individual to?

  22. “What would you do with a bloke like the one on the video I linked to?”

    As I said before, you do a risk assessment based on the individual circumstances. Genitals are irrelevant, but things like aggressive or violent behaviour, previous convictions, mental illness, psychopathy, and cooperativeness with the authorities are all very relevant.

    So for example, someone like Rosemary West, who assisted in the torture and murder of at least 9 young women, and who murdered her stepdaughter, is *not* someone I’d put unsupervised in an open prison with other women! Past behaviour and individual character is very much relevant to the safety case; that Rose happens to have female genitals is not.

    Same goes for any women with a less extreme history of violence, aggression, and intimidation behaviour, which frankly is not that unusual in a women’s prison. And the same principles apply if one woman with known violent tendencies is also a lot stronger or better trained (e.g. in martial arts) than the average woman, they may pose an extra risk to other women; just as we should consider if a violent man is much stronger or better trained than the average man, that they can pose an extra risk to other men. It’s the behaviour/capability that matters, not the sex.

    The primary requirement is that the authorities can keep prisoners safe from one another. If they can do that in a women’s prison, then safety is not an obstacle to putting them in a women’s prison. (Then it comes down to whether a psychologist would diagnose gender dysphoria – which in the case of someone showing obviously male behaviours even after ‘coming out’ is highly dubious.) If they can’t, then safety overrides sex and gender considerations. I’d equally well put a sufficiently dangerous woman in a men’s prison if there was no way to hold her securely with the other women.

    My primary argument is over the Group A Group B thing. I don’t agree with smearing everyone with male genitals as a potential/likely rapist and sex criminal. (That’s a ‘Julie Bindel’ type of argument!) I’ve got no objection to applying such restrictions to actual rapists and sex criminals.

  23. “How can you tell if someone is genuinely a Christian?”

    You can’t – it’s entirely a belief system. Neither can you tell if a man genuinely believes he is a woman. Also, you can’t tell if a man genuinely believes he is Mount Everest.

    But you can tell that a man is not actually Mount Everest.

    Similarly you can tell that a man isn’t a woman. This can assist greatly in choosing whether to send someone to a men’s prison or a women’s prison.

    Methodology:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6fgPX3NjyA

  24. By the way, NiV, instead of diverting the conversation again, it would have been relevant and helpful if you’d just repeated your suggestion that asking people familiar with the transgender claimant’s past would be sufficient to cast doubt on the claim.

  25. “NiV is writing suicide notes.”

    He needs the money.

    Of course you’d already have died of old age waiting before he got to the final full stop.

  26. “By the way, NiV, instead of diverting the conversation again, it would have been relevant and helpful if you’d just repeated your suggestion that asking people familiar with the transgender claimant’s past would be sufficient to cast doubt on the claim.”

    Tim and JuliaM had already done that. I had already tried it in the previous conversation. But apparently most people didn’t understand what I meant when I did, so I tried a different approach this time.

    When discussing particular groups, the strong emotions they arouse often get in the way of thinking about them rationally. This is especially the case when people are using the ‘Group A Group B’ trick, as the groups are deliberately selected to arouse those emotions. So I often find it helpful to clarify the logic by transposing the arguments onto a different set of groups, that don’t have the same emotional associations.

    The basic problem Tim identifies in his headline question is that of verifying the presence of a mental characteristic, one that exists independently of what the person says about themselves, and which they may be motivated to lie about.

    Normally, for most such mental characteristics, we simply ask the person and accept their self-reports. If you met someone for the first time at a party and they told you they were a Christian, or an introvert, or didn’t like a particular food or particular style of music, you’d not think twice about believing them. You’ve got no particular reason not to, and they’re the one person with direct evidence and who would know.

    But in some circumstances, as in the case of the pew-jumpers, people may be more strongly motivated to lie about it. How do we verify the presence of a mental characteristic then? Well, you can easily see from the church’s recommendations that the only other realistic way to do it is to examine their behaviour over a longer period, preferably periods when they don’t have the same motivation to lie.

    You also have to set the strictness threshold to trade off the falling level of false positives against the rising level of false negatives. Make the method too strict, and you start eliminating the cases you want to keep. Is the Pope Catholic? It’s commonly used as a cliche for absolute certainty, but you don’t have to set the level very high to be uncertain about it. We routinely accept that Christians exist, and that we can count them by simply asking them, or looking at relatively simple and obvious external behaviours like church attendance.

    Once you’ve understood all that in the case of testing for Christianity, it’s then straightforward to translate back into the transgender case.

    The objection was raised that Christianity is different from transgenderism in that Christianity ‘obviously’ exists when transgenderism doesn’t, and that my argument was *assuming* existence. Again, the analogy helps, because if we translate back again we can see immediately that the Church has no more evidence that Christianity (as anything more than self-identification under a label) really exists, either – and even that there are some strong reasons to doubt that it does. Plenty of ‘Christians’ don’t follow the teachings of Christ too closely in their observable behaviour. If you accept that Christians exist on no more evidence than what they say/do – and people would think you pretty weird if you didn’t! – the same applies to anything else. You can reject both if you like, but you can’t reject one and not the other.

    So no, it wasn’t purely a diversion, it was intended to be useful. I doubt it worked, but it’s not for want of trying.

  27. The objection was raised that Christianity is different from transgenderism in that Christianity ‘obviously’ exists when transgenderism doesn’t, and that my argument was *assuming* existence.

    You didn’t argue that Christianity didn’t exist.
    You argued that it was false.

    In comparing it to the obviously-false belief system of Christianity

    Still waiting on clarification on which part (or all?) of Christianity is false…

  28. “You didn’t argue that Christianity didn’t exist. You argued that it was false.”

    I argued that Christianity couldn’t be proven to exist. I noted in passing, for anyone who wanted to object by claiming TG claims were false and that this invalidated the analogy, that the same could be said of Christianity. The truth or falsity of the self-perceptions being tested for is not essential to this argument – it was mentioned only as an explanation of why this particular potential objection is invalid.

    But to make you happy… Christianity is divided into many churches and sects, each with differing and incompatible beliefs. (They’ve fought wars over it.) They can’t all be correct. Therefore many Christian beliefs must be false.

    (This is just a special case of the ‘Number of Gods’ argument.)

    More could of course be said on the topic. And while it is certainly tempting to divert the conversation off TGs and into a religious war, it’s not relevant to the argument I was making. It’s sufficient to note that there are as many people who are as vehement in their belief in religion’s general falsity (and in objecting to its unjustified social influence) as you guys are about TGs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *