Gender again. Sorry!

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

winjim

Welcome yourself into the new modern crisis
What have we here? A man or a fish? Dead or alive? A fish. He smells like a fish, a very ancient and fish-like smell, a kind of not-of-the-newest poor-john. A strange fish! Were I in England now, as once I was, and had but this fish painted, not a holiday fool there but would give a piece of silver. There would this monster make a man. Any strange beast there makes a man.

Post in thread 'All right wingers are colossal morons' https://ncap.cyclechat.net/threads/all-right-wingers-are-colossal-morons.470/post-55458
 

Ian H

Guru
What have we here? A man or a fish? Dead or alive? A fish. He smells like a fish, a very ancient and fish-like smell, a kind of not-of-the-newest poor-john. A strange fish! Were I in England now, as once I was, and had but this fish painted, not a holiday fool there but would give a piece of silver. There would this monster make a man. Any strange beast there makes a man.

Screenshot_20230328-084611~2.png
[Nicked from Weird Medieval Guys]
 
In that case Wolf was also not found guilty of murder, theft, arson or death by dangerous driving. What an utterly pointless statement to make.


There wasn't a magistrate. Wolf was seen by a District Judge in the magistrate's court.

For clarity a District Judge is effectively a salaried and legally qualified Magistrate - they're normally lay volunteers. In the past they were called Stipendiary Magistrate.
 

icowden

Legendary Member
For clarity a District Judge is effectively a salaried and legally qualified Magistrate - they're normally lay volunteers. In the past they were called Stipendiary Magistrate.
Whilst that is true, to be a magistrate requires no legal training or background at all. A District Judge is appointed by the King and must have five years of appropriate professional legal experience (solicitor, barrister or legal exec) - it used to be 7 years and limited to Barristers and Solicitors but has been watered down due to the backlog and lack of Judges. A District Judge sits alone, whilst magistrates sit in threes.
 

monkers

Guru
Whilst that is true, to be a magistrate requires no legal training or background at all. A District Judge is appointed by the King and must have five years of appropriate professional legal experience (solicitor, barrister or legal exec) - it used to be 7 years and limited to Barristers and Solicitors but has been watered down due to the backlog and lack of Judges. A District Judge sits alone, whilst magistrates sit in threes.

You are quite correct. I used the word 'judge' a couple of times because I noticed his title. On the last instance I noticed it was a magistrates court and used the word magistrate. It wasn't a deliberate attempt to deny the status of the judge.

My point though was to point out that the article made reference to supporters who were announcing it as a 'guilty of male violence'. It wasn't and if you read the article in full, you ought appreciate the reasons for me saying it. Firstly the judge would not have said 'guilty of male violence' they would have said guilty of the charge on charge sheet.

To be fair to AS, she did say correctly; however the article makes clear that those at the scene did not. You should also note that the judge told the complainant a number of times to desist from misgendering the defendant. In the summing up it was noted that this was an assault of 'low culpability and low injury' and not 'male violence'.

Technically the act of making contact with another in this way is an assault. What is not being said is that the complainant had also committed assault, but as no complaint had been made, the judge could only find one way.
 

icowden

Legendary Member
An interesting diversion....
I'm sure you will all have read of the Nashville school shooting. There are a few interesting things about it. Firstly, shooters are almost always men. I think there are only 3 or 4 shooters on records going back to the 1970s who were women.

Secondly, despite all the news articles reporting that the shooter was a girl / woman, the shooter was in fact a man. In all articles where a transwoman commits a crime, they are referred to throughout that article as "She". It's notable that although the shooter was a transman, all of the articles refer to him as "she". Surely this should be being called out? This was a man doing the shooting not a woman (if we are to keep to established standards).

The more concerning aspect is that there have been 2 or 3 shootings now in the last couple of years where the shooter was an FTM / transman suggesting (given the statistical background of almost no women shooters) that perhaps hormone treatment could be a factor in the shooting. To my mind, this is another reason for investigating the issues with prescribing hormone treatment.
 

classic33

Senior Member
An interesting diversion....
I'm sure you will all have read of the Nashville school shooting. There are a few interesting things about it. Firstly, shooters are almost always men. I think there are only 3 or 4 shooters on records going back to the 1970s who were women.

Secondly, despite all the news articles reporting that the shooter was a girl / woman, the shooter was in fact a man. In all articles where a transwoman commits a crime, they are referred to throughout that article as "She". It's notable that although the shooter was a transman, all of the articles refer to him as "she". Surely this should be being called out? This was a man doing the shooting not a woman (if we are to keep to established standards).

The more concerning aspect is that there have been 2 or 3 shootings now in the last couple of years where the shooter was an FTM / transman suggesting (given the statistical background of almost no women shooters) that perhaps hormone treatment could be a factor in the shooting. To my mind, this is another reason for investigating the issues with prescribing hormone treatment.
If the law says she's a woman, it'll be reported that way. Maybe you can give Reuters a call and tell them they've got things wrong, point out where they've gone wrong.

Whose "established standards" are we expected to be using?
 

monkers

Guru
An interesting diversion....
I'm sure you will all have read of the Nashville school shooting. There are a few interesting things about it. Firstly, shooters are almost always men. I think there are only 3 or 4 shooters on records going back to the 1970s who were women.

Secondly, despite all the news articles reporting that the shooter was a girl / woman, the shooter was in fact a man. In all articles where a transwoman commits a crime, they are referred to throughout that article as "She". It's notable that although the shooter was a transman, all of the articles refer to him as "she". Surely this should be being called out? This was a man doing the shooting not a woman (if we are to keep to established standards).

The more concerning aspect is that there have been 2 or 3 shootings now in the last couple of years where the shooter was an FTM / transman suggesting (given the statistical background of almost no women shooters) that perhaps hormone treatment could be a factor in the shooting. To my mind, this is another reason for investigating the issues with prescribing hormone treatment.

As it happens I've posted something on the 199 thread that addresses many of your points. The attacker was a female born person who had a diagnosis of high functioning autism and who had been recently been receiving counselling. Recently they had started to identify as a man, so we might safely assume that they were a trans man in the very earliest stages of transition.

There was some new identity on the net including a profile on Linkedin, but what was left as a suicide note left to a best friend was signed Audrey. There's cause to doubt that testosterone was an influence.

If testosterone was an influence as some seem to claim, and also claiming that testosterone influences brain activity, then those saying it need to stop saying the opposite in the case of trans women where they will tend to say that female hormones feminise the body but not the brain.

We can expect some punching down from the right wing press on people with autism, those with some mental health need, those people who are seen by others as 'loners', those people who are struggling with identity etc. People will deny that guns are the issue, but that the wrong kind of people are. There is no single issue.
 

icowden

Legendary Member
As it happens I've posted something on the 199 thread that addresses many of your points.
Just read that, and it is an excellent thesis. For once I am in fairly firm agreement with you.

If testosterone was an influence as some seem to claim, and also claiming that testosterone influences brain activity, then those saying it need to stop saying the opposite in the case of trans women where they will tend to say that female hormones feminise the body but not the brain.
I'm not sure that that follows. Transwomen have high levels of testosterone due to starting as men. Yes they are having it lowered with hormone therapy but it is still significant - hence the difficulty in keeping sport fair. In the case of transmen, they are ramping up the testosterone.

On the flip side, as you say, there appears to be no evidence yet that Audrey was taking cross-sex hormones, plus according to newsweek Marjorie Taylor Greene is already certain that it's "cos they were trans and taking hormones" which is a huge red flag for any kind of sane conversation.

https://www.newsweek.com/audrey-hale-hormones-transgender-shooting-nashville-1790804
 

multitool

Shaman
There is no sane 'public conversation' about trans people, ever.

Its drowned out by people spreading fear and hatred either for their own political/financial gain, or because they've been seduced by such people.

In reality, trans people just go about their lives largely unnoticed by the rest of us. This is no different. The only remarkable thing is that rates of mass shootings by trans people are lower than general population.
 

monkers

Guru
Just read that, and it is an excellent thesis. For once I am in fairly firm agreement with you.


I'm not sure that that follows. Transwomen have high levels of testosterone due to starting as men. Yes they are having it lowered with hormone therapy but it is still significant - hence the difficulty in keeping sport fair. In the case of transmen, they are ramping up the testosterone.

On the flip side, as you say, there appears to be no evidence yet that Audrey was taking cross-sex hormones, plus according to newsweek Marjorie Taylor Greene is already certain that it's "cos they were trans and taking hormones" which is a huge red flag for any kind of sane conversation.

https://www.newsweek.com/audrey-hale-hormones-transgender-shooting-nashville-1790804

Well I tend to think that the evidence you present make it likely that it does follow.

BTW trans women who have undergone GRS have no testosterone whereas as biological women have. That's right, there are trans women who have less testosterone than cis women.

The headline of the piece you've linked to says it all ...

How Transgender Hormone Therapy Affects the Brain​



How does this claim work ... that testosterone is brain altering for trans men, but that the hormone replacement therapy of trans women leaves them as aggressive and violent as cis men?

Women do commit murder, we can not simply just brush this away as acts of 'crimes of passion' (not that you did). They are the acts of people who are angry.

The test is are they just angry people, or are they people who have been made angry? The distinction is really important. There are people who say that we are all capable of murder. I think this is likely to be true for a sizeable majority, we all have the capacity for rage when sufficiently provoked. Hence far the UK has legal measures that prevent people from provoking people too far, but these safety measures are being eroded.
 

AuroraSaab

Legendary Member
How does this claim work ... that testosterone is brain altering for trans men, but that the hormone replacement therapy of trans women leaves them as aggressive and violent as cis men?

Lowered testosterone doesn't mitigate the effect of years of male socialisation, just as lowered testosterone doesn't mitigate the effects of a male body in sport. Neither can be undone. We do know however that testosterone is one element in male aggression and it seems unlikely that it wouldn't produce a similar effect in females as it does in males, though obviously tempered by the fact females are socialised differently.

Also, the requirement from transactivists is that there should be no gatekeeping as to who is transgender. You don't have to be on hormones or undergo surgery, it's simply self ID. Thus discussion as to whether transwomen as an overall general population are more or less disposed towards male pattern violence is a bit moot, as not all of them will be on hrt or undergoing surgery. We can only go on the research data and prison statistics which suggests they retain a male pattern of criminality.
 

classic33

Senior Member
Lowered testosterone doesn't mitigate the effect of years of male socialisation, just as lowered testosterone doesn't mitigate the effects of a male body in sport. Neither can be undone. We do know however that testosterone is one element in male aggression and it seems unlikely that it wouldn't produce a similar effect in females as it does in males, though obviously tempered by the fact females are socialised differently.

Also, the requirement from transactivists is that there should be no gatekeeping as to who is transgender. You don't have to be on hormones or undergo surgery, it's simply self ID. Thus discussion as to whether transwomen as an overall general population are more or less disposed towards male pattern violence is a bit moot, as not all of them will be on hrt or undergoing surgery. We can only go on the research data and prison statistics which suggests they retain a male pattern of criminality.
You're working one way, again. And making it sound like they simply decide, on the spur of the moment, that they are male, not female.
 

monkers

Guru
Lowered testosterone doesn't mitigate the effect of years of male socialisation, just as lowered testosterone doesn't mitigate the effects of a male body in sport. Neither can be undone. We do know however that testosterone is one element in male aggression and it seems unlikely that it wouldn't produce a similar effect in females as it does in males, though obviously tempered by the fact females are socialised differently.

Also, the requirement from transactivists is that there should be no gatekeeping as to who is transgender. You don't have to be on hormones or undergo surgery, it's simply self ID. Thus discussion as to whether transwomen as an overall general population are more or less disposed towards male pattern violence is a bit moot, as not all of them will be on hrt or undergoing surgery. We can only go on the research data and prison statistics which suggests they retain a male pattern of criminality.

Please don't pretend that the science is at an end point and that you understand it.

Marcia Bowers for instance, who has done work on this, asserts that hormone replacement therapy decreases bone density and muscle mass to similar levels of cis women. Other scientists say that heavier limbs - or levers as they sometimes will call them - require the accompanying muscle that is lost has causation in a drop of physical performance. Pippa York states that during her transition, she found that lowering testosterone meant that her body needed greater recovery time, reducing the time available for training, noting that this causes a significant reduction in performance.

One recent scientific review of the available literature gave an opinion that trans women do have an advantage, but it is not so much a matter of testosterone, and more about the socialising process of males, the bigger pool of those wishing to be in various sports and athletics, and the better opportunities and prizes available to them.

None of the above says that there can not be advantage; it indicates that the science is too young to make these dogmatic claims.
 
Top Bottom