Yeah. Why use incoherent language to explain simple fact? Men and women are 2 different reproductive states/sexes. That's why they are different. That's why they need sex-segregated spaces. "Gender identity" and "transgenderism" are incoherent notions that pervert language in an attempt to legitimatize delusion. This is what "woke" means, the deliberate denial of objective reality. Please stop.
Agreed. I refuse to use the terms "transwomen" and "transmen." There's no such thing. You're either a man or a woman, and nobody can magically morph into the opposite sex!
I am glad that this data is being collected, provided and analyzed. I will make a separate comment on the interpretation since that is a separate thing.
I commend the attempt to analyze the data. However, it is important to distinguish between hypotheses, interpretation, and facts. I am disappointed that the analysis does not consider the possibility of social conditioning. In many societies, Males are often encouraged to be assertive, and even aggressive, from a young age. A secondary possible contributing factor is simply size. While I have not done a study, I imagine that most sexual aggressors are bigger than their victims, and most biological males are bigger than most of the population (there is no contradiction, 25% of the population is bigger than the other 75%). Wording like this should be avoided when not substantiated: "Instead, the evidence points to a clear, persistent pattern grounded in biological sex, not identity or current hormone status." Consider for example if we found a "pattern" of white males having more wealth than black males. Would that mean it is "grounded" in their skin color? It is important to separate facts, hypotheses, and interpretations. This is a major part of the basis of science, so we can agree on facts, disagree on interpretations, evaluate logic, and seek support for hypotheses. This piece has some interpretations of the data, and some useful thoughts. The next step is hypotheses to seek what the underlying explanations are. Others can disagree with my assessment and are free to do so.
OMG, A.S. you don't need a fucking study to know the reality. I'm sure you are a delightful person but you are trying way too hard to make this way too hard. People with natal cock and balls absolutely abuse (sexually, I'n talking about) far far far more the people with a natal vag and uterus. I don't care how many drugs you jack them up with. Your comment smacks of equivocation, virtue signaling, or some hybrid of both. In every case, it is bullshit.
Just a pile on even to myself, all of these studies and fantastic essays are awesome and serve only to counter the bullshit that we all know is, frankly ... bullshit. These studies and enormous efforts at proving the obvious should never have to happen because we all know the truth, as much as some want so badly for it not to be the case. But it is the case. I love men. I love their strength I love their chivalry I love their protection I love how powerful and potent their bodies are. And, they also can do great harm. For the small subset that does (and I would argue that it is a small subset, regardless of what hormones they do or do not take), particularly against women, it exists. Full stop. Good god, can we please move on? And I say that as a hope and prayer to the greater global conversation.
I don't know what you even meant by "equivocation". Equating what to what? There was no virtue signaling in my comments. I was simply engaging in constructive dialogue. If you are not here for that, then please just don't try to communicate with me. And also, please don't communicate with me profanity, I have no interest in that, either.
My response to this is quite simple. If you are not interested in the analysis, don't read it and don't waste my time and your time with your comment. If all you care about is the 'rules and legislation', then go comment on that.
This substack is largely about analyzing things for the truth. Your comment is the one that was irrelevant. If you feel that analyzing things for the truth is irrelevant for your goals, perhaps you should be spending your time at a different substack. To respond to the other part of this comment of yours, as noted earlier, your comment did not analyze anything.
The data cited is itself is skewed by flawed definitions and multiple confounds to such a degree as to be descriptively worthless. See my comment below.
It showed that contrary to stereotypes, the transitioned males' level of violent crime started off and stayed elevated above normie male levels, even though they'd been castrated, and transitioned females' levels of violent crime rose up to normie male levels.
The upshot was an average rate of violent crime convictions 2.7x that of the normie population.
The authors of the study, whose goal had been to make the case for more mental health care for trans, realized how bad it would look so "adjusted" the numbers by discounting all the crimes committed by those who'd already had a mental health diagnosis before their surgeries.
With that adjustment, they managed to lower that 2.7x number to 1.5x, and shrink the amount of data to the point where they could dismiss the result as statistically insignificant.
But to the poor women in prison who are assaulted by these men (who are actually mostly still fully intact males), it doesn't matter whether he became violent before he transitioned or after; he's a threat.
These kind of data are highly suspect. The definitions are often based on feelings rather than actions, so social rules regarding when to report what for males and females play a large role. Furthermore, you can't really do meaningful statistics on a sample size this small.
It's the whole "domestic violence" or "pay gap" debate all over again. Once you clear up all the pseudoscience and start correcting for all relevant biases in the data it's much closer than anyone would think. We can save many kids from getting raped by their female relatives if we get rid of this brainless narrative.
If people who call themselves trans score higher on these metrics, it's not necessarily due to their sex. This condition often goes hand in hand what all kinds of other mental ailments. They are fundamentally broken to a point where they think their soul lives in the wrong body. Only a fool would think this fact would not impact their representation in stats like this.
I also really don't like the insinuation that the stats are that way because male predators are gaming the system. While it probably happens and is one of the main conservative talking points, it detracts from the fact that there is something seriously wrong with these people, and we should be helping them instead of affirming their fantasies. Just blaming "bad men" for everything is what got us in this mess in the first place.
I hate to distract from this detailed analysis of male criminal behavior, as compared to female criminal behavior, and the application of that analysis to decisions about placement in male or female prisons. However, because this article is, at least in part, about how we define "man" or "woman" and I find the bio for the author confusing, I must ask: Isn't Aaron a woman, a female? The bio says she was "born female," as if that is no longer the case, and uses "he" to describe her.
But isn't that the very same argument used to put males in female prisons - that they are no longer male (with some people going further and saying they were never male because their "gender identity" wasn't known early on but is now clearly "female")?
I don't want to offend or insult. I am truly trying to understand, because I followed and admired Aaron's story, and decision to make peace with her female body and the fac that she is a butch lesbian - even though her body now may look more masculine (and was always a bit more masculine due to a DSD). I have been rooting for Aaron, and wanting her to be accepted by other females in female-only spaces, particularly when the women in those spaces know she is, in fact, female.
Did I misunderstand Aaron's position, or am I misunderstanding the bio, or am I wrong about both things?
N.B. there were 2 Aarons in the GC TRA space both IDing as trans men at one time, both female, A. Terrell and A. Kimberly. They even did a GD Alliance podcast episode together.
Easily the most idiotic article this site has produced. Female and male rates of perpetration approach parity once "made to penetrate" is included in the definition and massive confounds such as reporting and conviction rates are accounted for:
Also, inmate on inmate sexual assault rates in women's prisons are multiples of those of men. I see this site refrains from including this potential confound: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2438589/
This is just a small sampling of the existing research on the subject that any intellectually honest person would discuss. Ultimately, however, such definitions are upheld as a means of protecting female predators, including those who prey on other women.
Also, the definition of rape itself- "forced penetration"- is so constructed as to exclude the vast majority of female perpetrators and male victims. Talk about intellectual dishonesty.
Thanks for providing these references. I am skeptical of the parity claim, I did look at the link. As you know and have pointed out, there are often unreasonable definitions used. I am glad to have been exposed to the additional information you provided.
I would further note that there is at least one study showing that a high percentage of male rapists experienced heterosexual molestation as children, and sexual abuse in general is a known risk factor for future perpetration: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2466/pr0.1984.54.3.810
Yes, I have previously seen statistics about people who themselves were abused and did imagine it was a factor here. I did not mention it since it is an often discussed factor which is well known. However, it is good that you point it out. Others looking at this comment section may be less aware of that factor, and I do think that any analysis should be regarded as highly suspect without trying to explicitly or implicitly control for that factor since that one has such a strong (and seemingly causative) association
Interesting links! I have seen the prison context (and also corporal power differentials) alluded to re female on male rape, but it seems to be a much wider problem, trusting the sources you referenced.
Wonder if you have thoughts about timelines here as it relates to female empowerment. The data does not seem to go back very far.
I would think data on non sexual assault to be less subject to the kind of definitional bias you reference, at least.
Also I think the point regarding selfID is salient. There is a general sense that getting female inmates pregnant from other inmates is not good practice, even if female to female sexual assault apparently needs to be much better controlled as well.
As for timelines regarding "female empowerment", that begins from the false assumption of some primordial female oppression- check out Martin Van Creveld's book on this subject. The availability of data on this is far from what would be wished, but I see no reason to assume relative rates have changed, since similar patterns occur in less developed societies whenever someone bothers to look out for them. What has increased is awareness from a starting point of basically nil.
Do not accept that I imply primordial primordial female oppression. Was simply referring to the seismic shifts noted by everyone in modern society. The first association that arises with the term "masculinity", did not use to be "toxic", for example. "Increased awareness from nil" implies much is to be learned.
Fair enough, but as I said, less developed countries show similar patterns in many instances. I see no reason to suppose this has changed significantly over time, only that reporting and detection rates have gone up.
That's the problem. The issue is criminally under-researched, but what research exists indicates comparable if not higher rates of perpetration, adjusting for the massive confound that is the difference in reporting rates. And it isn't just in western contexts either- check out this study from the Congo: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/186342. In short, rape is assumed as something done by men to women, investigations are conducted on this basis, and it is thus circularly concluded that men make up the vast majority of the perpetrators and women the vast majority of the victims. The built-in definitional and methodological flaws of this approach make most rape statistics, especially by government agencies, essentially descriptively worthless when assessing relative perpetration and victimization rates.
Not getting into the fact that women are treated *far* more leniently by justice systems worldwid.
Self ID that could not be questioned by anyone - even friends, parents, non-ideological health professional, public officials, etc. - was what brought us to a 'person with a penis' that has raped another person with that very penis still having to be considered a "she". Any sane person could see the incentive structure this created and the utter absurdity of the proposition without relying on statistics - but it is good to have them, and apparently they are necessary to counter the notion that doing crazy is OK if bad outcomes are rare.
Hazel-rah that is precisely what is needed here. And sadly, it's the most lacking in our political class that actually has the power do something about it.
There's something rather noxious about feigning concern for the well-being of incarcerated criminals for the sake of pushing back on trans ideology, even if it much of it is just off the rails--and especially in light of longstanding issues involving the physical safety of inmates in the American prison system that have long needed to be addressed and rectified. In any other context, prisoners are the very bottom of the list of those deserving of compassion and advocacy by most Americans but because the issue at hand provides ammunition in the ongoing culture wars, we'll pretend that we actually possess a modicum of compassion about their well-being behind bars. And again, this is coming from someone who thinks ignoring the very real concept of biological sex differences is pure insanity.
Except this isn't about women in general; it's about women behind bars and nobody gives a crap about the safety of the incarcerated regardless of gender. Maybe they should have thought about all this before they engaged in the criminal behavior that got them locked up in the first place, no?
This has nothing to do with concern and compassion for the incarcerated and we know it. Why pretend otherwise?
Women's spaces are under attack in every area, not just in prisons. This just happens to be a relevant study done by our government that brings it to light in this particular arena.
This much is true, but the protection of women's spaces and advocacy of the physical safety of the incarcerated (which is about as characteristically left-wing of a cause as it gets) make for rather interesting bedfellows on a right-leaning platform seeing as though few groups are held in as high disregard by conservatives as criminals, much less prisoners.
I suppose it could be considered yet another example of just how much traditional ideological lines are continuing to blur in particular areas in the age of Trump.
Or maybe it's just that sometimes common decency trumps ideology and political persuasion. There's nothing "left-wing" about women's rights in this day and age - especially considering it's the left that is systematically boot-stomping them as we speak.
Eh, the same crowd that says the police did the country favor 5 years ago on a Minneapolos street given Floyd's rap sheet is now all of a sudden concerned about Susan Smith's safety because she has a cellmate who was named Paul at birth--while just totally forgetting what she did that landed her behind bars in the first place?
I mean sure, they do it but I'm not going to act like I don't see it.
I have receipts (and strong opinions on the matter) that say otherwise, but okay. The way America treats the incarcerated, at all levels, is downright abominable. One firsthand report is one too many.
You know, you could have just as easily responded along the lines of "Perhaps, but at least the issue is getting some level of exposure, as it should."
I hope all of this running around like some crashed out hall monitor who gets her fixes by picking fights with anyone whose posts throw her "offended" switch into overdrive is giving you the real-world validation you're obviously so desperately in need of. The amount of energy you're committing to this endeavor would be impressive if it weren't so sad.
Women are certainly in need of protection in their own dedicated spaces but there's not a policy that could ever be crafted that can protect you from that guttersnipe attitude of yours.
I’d get more concerned about this if women didn’t bloc-vote for the party trying to erase them. Once women vote in their own best interests - which instantly excludes voting for Democrats, this tranny nonsense will go away. Up to the women: targets or adults?
"Some women vote Democrat so I don't give a shit if some other women are getting raped in prison by predatory men who opportunistically self-ID their way in there with them" is the excuse of a weak man who takes his own life frustrations out on women.
B) the ONLY reason the trans idiocy even exists is women voting in the majority for Democrats. It allows Ds to go as far left as they want and never lose the votes of half the population.
C) no, Honey, it’s not a “weak man,” who expects others to accept responsibility for their actions. It’s a weak woman who refuses to do so.
Excellent piece that gets farther into important dimensions of the data, especially sex, than other articles on the same subject.
I am curious about the percentage of indigenous people who showed up in this data. The comparison that is of interest to me is between the percentage of trans-identified indigenous people in the sample versus the overall percentage of indigenous people who have histories of incarceration for similar violent crimes. I suspect that indigenous people may be overrepresented in prison populations, at least in some geographic areas, but I haven't looked into this yet.
I'm sure they are. I'm also fairly certain that the number of "trans" identified humans is grossly inflated as well. When the fad wears off, I'm pretty sure the numbers (specifically of the "bi" population) will start to decline.
Unquestionably so! Both the non-binaries and the queers are mostly young liberal white women who are innately heterosexual. There is no power on the planet like the mating instinct. I am already seeing its effects among young people I know, as the girls sheepishly and quietly leave their female lovers and move in with their new boyfriends. LOL!
Ha! It's actually kinda funny. Pew Research did a study in 2015 and found that 84% of bisexual women were in heterosexual relationships. I doubt it's much different now. I guess "bi" is an awful lot more interesting than "average".
Precisely! It is also kind of comical how embarrassed and "ashamed" these young women admit feeling about their heterosexuality. The culture has certainly turned around 180 degrees with respect to gayness! On a sadder note, though, why do young women still have to feel bad about who they are, even when it couldn't be more normal?
There's a correlation between "trans" and "indigenous" in this context, but it's based on the ease with which one can assume each identity and what one might stand to gain from doing so.
It is indeed impossible to get accurate reads on prevalence of any woke category that can be faked, including "trans," "gay," "on the spectrum," and "ADHD," with new options soon to follow as the adolescents who dream them up grow bored with their current roles.
Good overview. It shows the common belief that transwomen are just like women and pose no additional risk to women is flat out not true. A note about "Conversely, if testosterone suppression reduced the risk of sexual violence, we would expect transwomen with lowered testosterone to offend at lower rates than biological males—but the opposite appears true." Do we have the data to show if and when testosterone was lowered? Is it possible that all the sexual crimes were committed prior to lowering of testosterone levels?
Aaron (the author of the substack article I'm commenting on) wrote:
"These findings also present a significant challenge to the common belief that circulating testosterone levels is the primary driver of aggressive or sexual behavior."
This is simply wrong - that is, the data on transwoman do not challenge the conventional wisdom - because Aaron also told us that:
"Of those transwomen with sexual assault convictions, 94 percent committed the offenses prior to identifying as transwomen." The key phrase here is "prior to"
If the trans-identifying males only started to claim to identify or started to identify as women after they had committed sexual assaults, well then we should assume that at the time of the sexual assault they had male-level amounts of testosterone circulating in their bodies. The key phrases here are "after" and "at the time of the sexual assault."
"Transwomen" are MEN. Just use real words to describe reality.
I agree! No need to clutter our minds with irrelevancies!
Yeah. Why use incoherent language to explain simple fact? Men and women are 2 different reproductive states/sexes. That's why they are different. That's why they need sex-segregated spaces. "Gender identity" and "transgenderism" are incoherent notions that pervert language in an attempt to legitimatize delusion. This is what "woke" means, the deliberate denial of objective reality. Please stop.
Agreed. I refuse to use the terms "transwomen" and "transmen." There's no such thing. You're either a man or a woman, and nobody can magically morph into the opposite sex!
I am glad that this data is being collected, provided and analyzed. I will make a separate comment on the interpretation since that is a separate thing.
A mature country wouldn’t worry about this as its voters would recognize that the entire “trans” scam is just bullshit by insane morons.
I commend the attempt to analyze the data. However, it is important to distinguish between hypotheses, interpretation, and facts. I am disappointed that the analysis does not consider the possibility of social conditioning. In many societies, Males are often encouraged to be assertive, and even aggressive, from a young age. A secondary possible contributing factor is simply size. While I have not done a study, I imagine that most sexual aggressors are bigger than their victims, and most biological males are bigger than most of the population (there is no contradiction, 25% of the population is bigger than the other 75%). Wording like this should be avoided when not substantiated: "Instead, the evidence points to a clear, persistent pattern grounded in biological sex, not identity or current hormone status." Consider for example if we found a "pattern" of white males having more wealth than black males. Would that mean it is "grounded" in their skin color? It is important to separate facts, hypotheses, and interpretations. This is a major part of the basis of science, so we can agree on facts, disagree on interpretations, evaluate logic, and seek support for hypotheses. This piece has some interpretations of the data, and some useful thoughts. The next step is hypotheses to seek what the underlying explanations are. Others can disagree with my assessment and are free to do so.
OMG, A.S. you don't need a fucking study to know the reality. I'm sure you are a delightful person but you are trying way too hard to make this way too hard. People with natal cock and balls absolutely abuse (sexually, I'n talking about) far far far more the people with a natal vag and uterus. I don't care how many drugs you jack them up with. Your comment smacks of equivocation, virtue signaling, or some hybrid of both. In every case, it is bullshit.
Just a pile on even to myself, all of these studies and fantastic essays are awesome and serve only to counter the bullshit that we all know is, frankly ... bullshit. These studies and enormous efforts at proving the obvious should never have to happen because we all know the truth, as much as some want so badly for it not to be the case. But it is the case. I love men. I love their strength I love their chivalry I love their protection I love how powerful and potent their bodies are. And, they also can do great harm. For the small subset that does (and I would argue that it is a small subset, regardless of what hormones they do or do not take), particularly against women, it exists. Full stop. Good god, can we please move on? And I say that as a hope and prayer to the greater global conversation.
I don't know what you even meant by "equivocation". Equating what to what? There was no virtue signaling in my comments. I was simply engaging in constructive dialogue. If you are not here for that, then please just don't try to communicate with me. And also, please don't communicate with me profanity, I have no interest in that, either.
No, they do not- see my comment below.
Please explain what difference all that makes to the woman being assaulted by the man in the shower of the prison.
We'll wait.
My response to this is quite simple. If you are not interested in the analysis, don't read it and don't waste my time and your time with your comment. If all you care about is the 'rules and legislation', then go comment on that.
If you're not interested in my analysis, don't read it...
You did not provide any analysis in your comment that replied to mine.
My analysis was that your contention was irrelevant. That's obvious.
So we can add stupid to the tally, along with irrelevant.
This substack is largely about analyzing things for the truth. Your comment is the one that was irrelevant. If you feel that analyzing things for the truth is irrelevant for your goals, perhaps you should be spending your time at a different substack. To respond to the other part of this comment of yours, as noted earlier, your comment did not analyze anything.
The data cited is itself is skewed by flawed definitions and multiple confounds to such a degree as to be descriptively worthless. See my comment below.
Yep. This is consistent with the (in)famous 2011-published Swedish 30-year followup study on every post-op trans person in the country:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885
It showed that contrary to stereotypes, the transitioned males' level of violent crime started off and stayed elevated above normie male levels, even though they'd been castrated, and transitioned females' levels of violent crime rose up to normie male levels.
The upshot was an average rate of violent crime convictions 2.7x that of the normie population.
The authors of the study, whose goal had been to make the case for more mental health care for trans, realized how bad it would look so "adjusted" the numbers by discounting all the crimes committed by those who'd already had a mental health diagnosis before their surgeries.
With that adjustment, they managed to lower that 2.7x number to 1.5x, and shrink the amount of data to the point where they could dismiss the result as statistically insignificant.
But to the poor women in prison who are assaulted by these men (who are actually mostly still fully intact males), it doesn't matter whether he became violent before he transitioned or after; he's a threat.
These kind of data are highly suspect. The definitions are often based on feelings rather than actions, so social rules regarding when to report what for males and females play a large role. Furthermore, you can't really do meaningful statistics on a sample size this small.
It's the whole "domestic violence" or "pay gap" debate all over again. Once you clear up all the pseudoscience and start correcting for all relevant biases in the data it's much closer than anyone would think. We can save many kids from getting raped by their female relatives if we get rid of this brainless narrative.
If people who call themselves trans score higher on these metrics, it's not necessarily due to their sex. This condition often goes hand in hand what all kinds of other mental ailments. They are fundamentally broken to a point where they think their soul lives in the wrong body. Only a fool would think this fact would not impact their representation in stats like this.
I also really don't like the insinuation that the stats are that way because male predators are gaming the system. While it probably happens and is one of the main conservative talking points, it detracts from the fact that there is something seriously wrong with these people, and we should be helping them instead of affirming their fantasies. Just blaming "bad men" for everything is what got us in this mess in the first place.
How many stats courses have you taken? What's your degree in?
N=82. It's not huge, but it's
1) Much larger than the average size of the studies that claim to show positive results for transition for example, and
2) Big enough for the analyses to be statistically significant.
So-called transwomen ARE MEN, so it is no surprise that they criminally offend as other men do.
I hate to distract from this detailed analysis of male criminal behavior, as compared to female criminal behavior, and the application of that analysis to decisions about placement in male or female prisons. However, because this article is, at least in part, about how we define "man" or "woman" and I find the bio for the author confusing, I must ask: Isn't Aaron a woman, a female? The bio says she was "born female," as if that is no longer the case, and uses "he" to describe her.
But isn't that the very same argument used to put males in female prisons - that they are no longer male (with some people going further and saying they were never male because their "gender identity" wasn't known early on but is now clearly "female")?
I don't want to offend or insult. I am truly trying to understand, because I followed and admired Aaron's story, and decision to make peace with her female body and the fac that she is a butch lesbian - even though her body now may look more masculine (and was always a bit more masculine due to a DSD). I have been rooting for Aaron, and wanting her to be accepted by other females in female-only spaces, particularly when the women in those spaces know she is, in fact, female.
Did I misunderstand Aaron's position, or am I misunderstanding the bio, or am I wrong about both things?
This might provide some clarity about my position. I don’t concern myself much with pronouns. I know I’m a woman and always have. https://youtube.com/shorts/Ys_2WoRofMg?si=Q08RvI7HsW6POoVa
Thank you, Aaron, for the clarification. This makes a lot of sense.
Yeah, female.
N.B. there were 2 Aarons in the GC TRA space both IDing as trans men at one time, both female, A. Terrell and A. Kimberly. They even did a GD Alliance podcast episode together.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_RpPVbOwxA
Easily the most idiotic article this site has produced. Female and male rates of perpetration approach parity once "made to penetrate" is included in the definition and massive confounds such as reporting and conviction rates are accounted for:
https://x.com/Gynocentrism/status/1746834119894634802
https://x.com/HoneyBadgerBite/status/1854365927179227266
https://recalculatingthegenderwar.tumblr.com/post/162336650896/new-cdc-data-again-finds-as-many-if-not-more
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/232697712.pdf
Also, inmate on inmate sexual assault rates in women's prisons are multiples of those of men. I see this site refrains from including this potential confound: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2438589/
This is just a small sampling of the existing research on the subject that any intellectually honest person would discuss. Ultimately, however, such definitions are upheld as a means of protecting female predators, including those who prey on other women.
Also, the definition of rape itself- "forced penetration"- is so constructed as to exclude the vast majority of female perpetrators and male victims. Talk about intellectual dishonesty.
The "B-b-b-b-but women do it TOO!!!" forum is that way asshole -------->>>
"I need a complete echo chamber to maintain my imaginary monopoly on victimhood!"
Bye! ----------------->>>>
lol nope.
Thanks for providing these references. I am skeptical of the parity claim, I did look at the link. As you know and have pointed out, there are often unreasonable definitions used. I am glad to have been exposed to the additional information you provided.
I would further note that there is at least one study showing that a high percentage of male rapists experienced heterosexual molestation as children, and sexual abuse in general is a known risk factor for future perpetration: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2466/pr0.1984.54.3.810
"Social conditioning" indeed.
Yes, I have previously seen statistics about people who themselves were abused and did imagine it was a factor here. I did not mention it since it is an often discussed factor which is well known. However, it is good that you point it out. Others looking at this comment section may be less aware of that factor, and I do think that any analysis should be regarded as highly suspect without trying to explicitly or implicitly control for that factor since that one has such a strong (and seemingly causative) association
Interesting links! I have seen the prison context (and also corporal power differentials) alluded to re female on male rape, but it seems to be a much wider problem, trusting the sources you referenced.
Wonder if you have thoughts about timelines here as it relates to female empowerment. The data does not seem to go back very far.
I would think data on non sexual assault to be less subject to the kind of definitional bias you reference, at least.
Also I think the point regarding selfID is salient. There is a general sense that getting female inmates pregnant from other inmates is not good practice, even if female to female sexual assault apparently needs to be much better controlled as well.
As for timelines regarding "female empowerment", that begins from the false assumption of some primordial female oppression- check out Martin Van Creveld's book on this subject. The availability of data on this is far from what would be wished, but I see no reason to assume relative rates have changed, since similar patterns occur in less developed societies whenever someone bothers to look out for them. What has increased is awareness from a starting point of basically nil.
Do not accept that I imply primordial primordial female oppression. Was simply referring to the seismic shifts noted by everyone in modern society. The first association that arises with the term "masculinity", did not use to be "toxic", for example. "Increased awareness from nil" implies much is to be learned.
Fair enough, but as I said, less developed countries show similar patterns in many instances. I see no reason to suppose this has changed significantly over time, only that reporting and detection rates have gone up.
That's the problem. The issue is criminally under-researched, but what research exists indicates comparable if not higher rates of perpetration, adjusting for the massive confound that is the difference in reporting rates. And it isn't just in western contexts either- check out this study from the Congo: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/186342. In short, rape is assumed as something done by men to women, investigations are conducted on this basis, and it is thus circularly concluded that men make up the vast majority of the perpetrators and women the vast majority of the victims. The built-in definitional and methodological flaws of this approach make most rape statistics, especially by government agencies, essentially descriptively worthless when assessing relative perpetration and victimization rates.
Not getting into the fact that women are treated *far* more leniently by justice systems worldwid.
Self ID that could not be questioned by anyone - even friends, parents, non-ideological health professional, public officials, etc. - was what brought us to a 'person with a penis' that has raped another person with that very penis still having to be considered a "she". Any sane person could see the incentive structure this created and the utter absurdity of the proposition without relying on statistics - but it is good to have them, and apparently they are necessary to counter the notion that doing crazy is OK if bad outcomes are rare.
We needed a scientific study and epidemiological analysis to conclude:
Male criminals cheat to gain placement in women’s prisons?! DUH!
Yeah our opponents are not operating rationally, they won't be persuaded by any evidence.
This serves mainly to give ourselves moral confidence (I know I know we shouldn't need it) and persuade the under-informed who are persuadable.
But I agree, what we need by far the most of all is Courage.
Hazel-rah that is precisely what is needed here. And sadly, it's the most lacking in our political class that actually has the power do something about it.
There's something rather noxious about feigning concern for the well-being of incarcerated criminals for the sake of pushing back on trans ideology, even if it much of it is just off the rails--and especially in light of longstanding issues involving the physical safety of inmates in the American prison system that have long needed to be addressed and rectified. In any other context, prisoners are the very bottom of the list of those deserving of compassion and advocacy by most Americans but because the issue at hand provides ammunition in the ongoing culture wars, we'll pretend that we actually possess a modicum of compassion about their well-being behind bars. And again, this is coming from someone who thinks ignoring the very real concept of biological sex differences is pure insanity.
Not as noxious as saying in effect "Ah whatever, women are going to get abused anyway why bother to try to protect them when we can?"
Except this isn't about women in general; it's about women behind bars and nobody gives a crap about the safety of the incarcerated regardless of gender. Maybe they should have thought about all this before they engaged in the criminal behavior that got them locked up in the first place, no?
This has nothing to do with concern and compassion for the incarcerated and we know it. Why pretend otherwise?
Women's spaces are under attack in every area, not just in prisons. This just happens to be a relevant study done by our government that brings it to light in this particular arena.
This much is true, but the protection of women's spaces and advocacy of the physical safety of the incarcerated (which is about as characteristically left-wing of a cause as it gets) make for rather interesting bedfellows on a right-leaning platform seeing as though few groups are held in as high disregard by conservatives as criminals, much less prisoners.
I suppose it could be considered yet another example of just how much traditional ideological lines are continuing to blur in particular areas in the age of Trump.
Or maybe it's just that sometimes common decency trumps ideology and political persuasion. There's nothing "left-wing" about women's rights in this day and age - especially considering it's the left that is systematically boot-stomping them as we speak.
Eh, the same crowd that says the police did the country favor 5 years ago on a Minneapolos street given Floyd's rap sheet is now all of a sudden concerned about Susan Smith's safety because she has a cellmate who was named Paul at birth--while just totally forgetting what she did that landed her behind bars in the first place?
I mean sure, they do it but I'm not going to act like I don't see it.
*YOU don't give a crap
FIFY
I have receipts (and strong opinions on the matter) that say otherwise, but okay. The way America treats the incarcerated, at all levels, is downright abominable. One firsthand report is one too many.
You know, you could have just as easily responded along the lines of "Perhaps, but at least the issue is getting some level of exposure, as it should."
You could have not tried to hijack the thread with your favorite issue. Now piss off to the Incarceration forum wherever that is.
Or stay, and stay on topic 😀
I hope all of this running around like some crashed out hall monitor who gets her fixes by picking fights with anyone whose posts throw her "offended" switch into overdrive is giving you the real-world validation you're obviously so desperately in need of. The amount of energy you're committing to this endeavor would be impressive if it weren't so sad.
Women are certainly in need of protection in their own dedicated spaces but there's not a policy that could ever be crafted that can protect you from that guttersnipe attitude of yours.
I’d get more concerned about this if women didn’t bloc-vote for the party trying to erase them. Once women vote in their own best interests - which instantly excludes voting for Democrats, this tranny nonsense will go away. Up to the women: targets or adults?
"Some women vote Democrat so I don't give a shit if some other women are getting raped in prison by predatory men who opportunistically self-ID their way in there with them" is the excuse of a weak man who takes his own life frustrations out on women.
Weak. Man.
LOL. A) it’s not “some,” it’s over 60%
B) the ONLY reason the trans idiocy even exists is women voting in the majority for Democrats. It allows Ds to go as far left as they want and never lose the votes of half the population.
C) no, Honey, it’s not a “weak man,” who expects others to accept responsibility for their actions. It’s a weak woman who refuses to do so.
Excellent piece that gets farther into important dimensions of the data, especially sex, than other articles on the same subject.
I am curious about the percentage of indigenous people who showed up in this data. The comparison that is of interest to me is between the percentage of trans-identified indigenous people in the sample versus the overall percentage of indigenous people who have histories of incarceration for similar violent crimes. I suspect that indigenous people may be overrepresented in prison populations, at least in some geographic areas, but I haven't looked into this yet.
Indigenous people are most definitely overrepresented in the prison population, as are trans-identified males (trans-women).
Hint: Pretendians are over-represented amongst those who get benefit from timely self-IDing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretendian
I'm sure they are. I'm also fairly certain that the number of "trans" identified humans is grossly inflated as well. When the fad wears off, I'm pretty sure the numbers (specifically of the "bi" population) will start to decline.
Unquestionably so! Both the non-binaries and the queers are mostly young liberal white women who are innately heterosexual. There is no power on the planet like the mating instinct. I am already seeing its effects among young people I know, as the girls sheepishly and quietly leave their female lovers and move in with their new boyfriends. LOL!
Ha! It's actually kinda funny. Pew Research did a study in 2015 and found that 84% of bisexual women were in heterosexual relationships. I doubt it's much different now. I guess "bi" is an awful lot more interesting than "average".
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/02/20/among-lgbt-americans-bisexuals-stand-out-when-it-comes-to-identity-acceptance/
Precisely! It is also kind of comical how embarrassed and "ashamed" these young women admit feeling about their heterosexuality. The culture has certainly turned around 180 degrees with respect to gayness! On a sadder note, though, why do young women still have to feel bad about who they are, even when it couldn't be more normal?
You've almost got it.
There's a correlation between "trans" and "indigenous" in this context, but it's based on the ease with which one can assume each identity and what one might stand to gain from doing so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretendian
It is indeed impossible to get accurate reads on prevalence of any woke category that can be faked, including "trans," "gay," "on the spectrum," and "ADHD," with new options soon to follow as the adolescents who dream them up grow bored with their current roles.
Good overview. It shows the common belief that transwomen are just like women and pose no additional risk to women is flat out not true. A note about "Conversely, if testosterone suppression reduced the risk of sexual violence, we would expect transwomen with lowered testosterone to offend at lower rates than biological males—but the opposite appears true." Do we have the data to show if and when testosterone was lowered? Is it possible that all the sexual crimes were committed prior to lowering of testosterone levels?
Aaron (the author of the substack article I'm commenting on) wrote:
"These findings also present a significant challenge to the common belief that circulating testosterone levels is the primary driver of aggressive or sexual behavior."
This is simply wrong - that is, the data on transwoman do not challenge the conventional wisdom - because Aaron also told us that:
"Of those transwomen with sexual assault convictions, 94 percent committed the offenses prior to identifying as transwomen." The key phrase here is "prior to"
If the trans-identifying males only started to claim to identify or started to identify as women after they had committed sexual assaults, well then we should assume that at the time of the sexual assault they had male-level amounts of testosterone circulating in their bodies. The key phrases here are "after" and "at the time of the sexual assault."