There Is No Evidence Of Predatory Men Systematically Pretending To Be Trans Women

For the past week or so, there’s been a civil war on “TERF Twitter.”

Andrew Doyle, a long-time defender of women’s rights and biological reality, was subjected to a torrent of homophobic abuse for the crime of calling a trans woman “she” during an interview.

Janice Turner, an even longer-time defender, committed the same heresy and was subjected to a similar pillorying.

And Kathleen Stock, who’s been “in the trenches” longer than either of them, announced she’d be stepping back from Twitter after all the drama.

As time goes by, more and more “gender critical” people seem more focused on attacking trans women than defending women. And they do this even if it means eating their own.

But as I point out in my article, The Trouble With Trans, there’s a world of difference between transsexuals and transvestites and “transtrenders.” Even though they all use that same pesky prefix. And failing to acknowledge this distinction ends up hurting everybody. 

Kaylin didn’t seem to care.

---

Kaylin:

I see a lot of people congratulating you for nuanced discussion here, but you’ve actually done the opposite.

You’ve lumped together debates about different things - trans rights, detransition care, sexual predators, gendered violence - without actually providing any nuance. That is, you haven’t done the actual work of looking at the facts, the research or the complexity of the debates or engaging with the issues you raise critically – and doing so takes much longer than a 5 minute long article, even for one of the talking points you raise, trust me.

You’ve just listed a bunch of talking points, many of them transphobic (whether you realise it or not), such as the discredited idea of ‘autogynephilia’ (Ray Blanchard’s work is methodologically and ethically trash and this is the consensus among the wider medical community) without any further discussion, nuanced or otherwise.

You’ve essentially approached the issue of trans rights with cis privilege and prejudice, in a similar way that many white people approach the issue of black people’s rights from a position of white privilege and prejudice. Yes, some trans people have done bad things. There are bad people in every group. You state as much but you go further in implying that the actions of a minority should determine how we discuss the wider group. I know you don’t think you’ve done this, and you’ll tell me to “actually read the article” or something similar, but I can assure you, that’s exactly what you’ve done. Although you state that not all trans people are predators, you then mention the issue of sexual predators as an aspect of the discussion of trans people’s right to access public bathrooms – thus conflating the two issues (again, whether you intended to or not).

Some black people do bad things, should that be relevant when we discuss the wider rights of black people? Should we discuss banning black people from some public spaces because their presence makes some white people uncomfortable? Obviously not.

Some cisgender women sexually assault other cisgender women, or minors even, should that be relevant when we discuss the rights of cisgender women more generally? Should we discuss banning cisgender women from public bathrooms? Obviously not.

Really, if you want to discuss the nuance of these issues then please, do that. But this is just a regurgitation of well-worn tropes, many of which are unfounded propaganda aimed at preventing trans people from gaining rights or discrediting trans healthcare. That many of these points have become standard in mainstream ‘debate’ about trans rights is not an excuse – again, particularly given your claim to nuanced discussion.

There is no nuance here, and you have attempted none, so please don’t pretend you have. Your logic, that the behaviour of a minority should influence our discussion about the larger group is quite simply prejudice - and we would rightly call it that if applied to any other social group. You have an unchecked bias here, and as a result you have perpetuated some very problematic ideas in the guise of ‘nuance’ or discussing ‘both sides’.

---

---

Steve QJ:

“There is no nuance here, and you have attempted none, so please don’t pretend you have.”

Read this:

"The word “trans” has become hopelessly overloaded. And the baffling refusal to acknowledge this fact is behind almost all of the insanity and toxicity surrounding questions of trans inclusion.

[...]

...it’s why more and more, people are unwilling to even try to differentiate between transgender women and fetishistic, predatory men. It’s why articles highlighting the dangers posed by allowing rapists and perverts into female spaces are mistaken for attacks on transgender women in general. It’s why a debate that could so easily have been about compassion and common sense has become a cesspool of misogyny, spite and absolutism."

Read it over and over again. I even edited out a bit that would have stopped you from reading and starting to project again.

The nuance lies in recognising that the entire “trans community” is not the same. Just as, for example, black people aren’t all the same (oh how I wish trans people would stop trying to use black people as emotional leverage, but I guess emotional manipulation is your go-to).

Topically enough, I recently wrote an article in which I said that being afraid to acknowledge the criminal elements in the black community or refusing to talk about black-on-black crime is ridiculous. And actually harms black people more than anybody else.

This fear of acknowledging the predatory and misogynistic elements with the trans community and refusal to talk about the fact that a male doesn't become a female the instant he says so, is ridiculous. And harms trans people more than anybody else.

There are millions of people out there who support trans people and trans rights. But you can't keep insisting that we have to ignore women's privacy and safety to be on your side.

Because I see women on an almost daily basis say that they used to be supportive until they were exposed to the misogyny and disregard for women's safety that permeates trans discourse. Especially online. You can tell yourself that they're all TERFs or "right-wing" and that they were never really allies anyway, but you'll be wrong. And you'll be sticking your head in the sand about a problem that affects you and the wider trans community. The extremely vocal extremes of trans activism are turning countless people away.

---

Kaylin:

Yes, I read the entire article. You don’t need to quote it back, that doesn’t change my opinion of what you have said. It is still problematic.

The thing you’re missing is that there is no evidence whatsoever of predatory cis men systematically pretending to be trans women to abuse women in toilets (apart from anything else, cis men don’t need to go to the trouble of pretending to be trans women, they often assault women with impunity anyway). That is a myth which is widely used to argue against trans people’s rights to use a public bathroom. So when you bring that up, even though you state that they are separate from trans women, you are invoking a transphobic trope, even if you don’t realise it. That trope is often used to conflate the issue of trans rights and predatory men. The evidence of that is that you even felt the need to say that the two issues are separate - because they have been conflated to such an extent.

You also raise the issue of autogynephilia and Ray Blanchard - a concept which has widely been discredited by the medical community. It’s a transmisogynistic dog-whistle.

And Buck Angel is a highly problematic transmedicalist - again, promoting viewpoints which are widely discredited by research in trans rights and trans healthcare and viewed as problematic by much of the transgender community.

When you uncritically quote these people, invoke these concepts or perpetuate myths about predatory men pretending to be trans women you are, knowingly or not, promoting transphobic tropes and anti-trans dog-whistles. As a member of that community, who spends a lot of time researching this issue, I am trying to point this out to you. Please listen. What you are doing is harmful to many trans people.

---

Steve QJ:

“The thing you’re missing is that there is no evidence whatsoever of predatory cis men systematically pretending to be trans women to abuse women in toilets”

Two things here.

First, I never said there was evidence of men pretending to be trans to abuse women in toilets In fact, the only article I've ever written on the issue of trans women in toilets argues in favour of trans people using the bathroom of the gender they identify as. The nuance on this issue is that bathrooms are not the same as prisons or rape crisis centres or even communal changing rooms. And that if they don’t pass as women, they shouldn’t be in the women’s bathroom or any other women’s space.

Second, I note your use of the word "systematically." I find this so frustrating. Yes, there's no evidence of a patriarchy wide plot to pretend to be trans women and infiltrate women's bathrooms. Is that really all that will give you pause? Because you're obviously and deliberately setting an impossible standard there. It's not subtle. There is, however, plenty of evidence of women being assaulted by male people (call them cis men or trans women, I don't care) dressed as women in women's spaces

Is there evidence of men "systematically" attacking trans women in men's bathrooms? Or is your concern about trans women using men's bathrooms based simply on the risk of it happening and the fact that it does. Again, this whole issue would be so easy to sort out if trans women directed an ounce of the compassion they show for other trans women towards women.

Of course autogynephilia is real. Take, again, just off the top of my head, Kayla Limieux. Or Johanna Clayton. Or Debbie Hayton. Or pretty much any transvestite. Are you telling me there's no difference between these people and people with gender dysphoria? Because if you are, you're doing an immense disservice to people with gender dysphoria. Some men are sexually aroused imagining themselves as babies or dogs or dead bodies, but you think imagining themselves as women is a bridge too far?

I am listening. Honestly I am. But all I hear (in general, I'm not directing this solely at you) is word games, insults, lies, emotional manipulation, and claims that things are, for undisclosed reasons, "problematic." Why is Buck Angel problematic? Because you disagree with him? Why is my article problematic? Because every single word in it wasn't wholly affirming? How am I "harming" trans people? What is the harm? How is it connected to my article?

"Problematic" is meaningless. It cannot be persuasive or illuminating. Certainly not to a complete stranger. If you want me to listen (and hand on heart, I want to listen), say something meaningful and not obviously false. Show that you've thought about this issue from any perspective other than your own.

---

The “trans debate” is easily the most insane cultural phenomenon I’ve ever seen.

Male rapists in female prisons, male athletes dominating female sports, lesbians branded bigots for being lesbians, children being recklessly sterilised and cynically medicalised, if you’d described this to me, even five years ago, I probably wouldn’t have believed you. 

And given all of the above, you’d think calling a trans woman “she” would be extremely low on most people’s list of priorities.

Because differing viewpoints on pronoun usage aren’t the enemy. Journalists who've spent years fighting to protect women’s spaces and safety aren’t the enemy. Trans women are not the enemy. 

The enemy is an ideology that has abandoned objective reality and common sense and the very concept of women’s rights. It's radicalisation so extreme that it can no longer distinguish between friend and foe. It's absolutism and dishonesty and the absolute refusal to compromise. 

And failing to acknowledge this distinction will end up hurting everybody.