(Post in question)

Where trans people should be located in prisons is, of course, a contentious topic. I think the easiest solution is to abolish prisons, but that’s beyond the scope of this essay today.

Kay Brown perpetuates an ugly myth about trans women, one that has debunked by the author of the study herself;

“In the Dhejne study following up a cohort of post-op transsexuals they found,”

Male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime. By contrast, female-to-males had higher crime rates than female controls (aHR 4.1; 95% CI 2.5–6.9) but did not differ from male controls. This indicates a shift to a male pattern regarding criminality and that sex reassignment is coupled to increased crime rate in female-to-males. The same was true regarding violent crime.

Indeed, this is a direct quote from the study. But it ignores a few other important things located in the study. Namely, that that trans women and men did not have statistically identical crime rates when comparing the more recent data period, and that the study did not break down what types of crimes were committed.

If we look at what the lead author of the study has said in various interactions:

In a Reddit AMA:

Regarding criminality there are only results from either both trans women and trans men and displayed for the whole period 1973-2003 and for the periods of 1973-1988 and the 1989-2003. If one is only intrested in transwomen data is only available for the whole period. For only assigned med who had transition 1973-2003 they had committed more crimes than cis women and more violent crime than cis women. The number of transwomen who had comited crime durin gthis period was 32, and the number who had comitted violent crime were 14. Most likely some of the 32 transwomen who had comitted a any crime had also comitted a violent crime sop you can not add the numbers. Having a male pattern means that they did not differ regarding any crime or violent crime if compared with cis men. However even if I can’t say how it is for trans women specific one could see that if the whole group (tran women and trans men) are displayed together there is a very postive time trend. So after 1989 the transgender men and women together did not differ from cis gender men and women regarding comitting any crime or violent crime. This means that the trana population was not more criminal then the cis population after 1989. The actual number of any crimes for the transgroup is for 1973-2003 60, for 1973-1988 38 and for 1989-2003 22. The numbers of violent crimes are for 1972-2003 14, for 1973-1988 10 1989-2003 4

And again

For combined transgender females and males and for the whole period 1973-2003 we saw an increased risk of being dead ( in suicide and cardio vascular diseases) and of being hospitalized for any psychiatric morbidity and for suicide attempts. We saw a positive time trend regarding mortality, suicide attempts and any crime and violent crime. For the last period (1989-2003) the transgender group did not have any elevated risk of being dead or being hospitalized for suicide attempts or committing any crime or violent crime. They had the same risk as the controls. However the elevated risk for being hospitalized for psychiatric morbidity still remained. The elevated risk in the transgender group could be caused of many things which we were unable to control for. We were able to control for psychiatric morbidity and immigrant status but there are more variables which could explain increased mortality suicidality and psychiatric morbidity.

And with her interview with Cristan Williams:

The individual in the image who is making claims about trans criminality, specifically rape likelihood, is misrepresenting the study findings. The study as a whole covers the period between 1973 and 2003. If one divides the cohort into two groups, 1973 to 1988 and 1989 to 2003, one observes that for the latter group (1989 – 2003), differences in mortality, suicide attempts, and crime disappear. This means that for the 1989 to 2003 group, we did not find a male pattern of criminality

As to the criminality metric itself, we were measuring and comparing the total number of convictions, not conviction type. We were not saying that cisgender males are convicted of crimes associated with marginalization and poverty. We didn’t control for that and we were certainly not saying that we found that trans women were a rape risk. What we were saying was that for the 1973 to 1988 cohort group and the cisgender male group, both experienced similar rates of convictions. As I said, this pattern is not observed in the 1989 to 2003 cohort group.

The difference we observed between the 1989 to 2003 cohort and the control group is that the trans cohort group accessed more mental health care, which is appropriate given the level of ongoing discrimination the group faces. What the data tells us is that things are getting measurably better and the issues we found affecting the 1973 to 1988 cohort group likely reflects a time when trans health and psychological care was less effective and social stigma was far worse.

It’s pretty clear from the quote that the study doesn’t evidence any of the claims about rape.

“Dr. Watson’s suggestion that pre-operative male to female transsexuals would pose little physical risk to female prisoners was addressed by several of CSC’s witnesses. Dr. Dickey, Dr. Hucker and Ms. Petersen all disagree with Dr. Watson’s statement that most male to female transsexual inmates are attracted to men: To the contrary, they say, the majority of transsexuals in federal prisons are actually attracted to women. It takes serious criminal activity to qualify a person for a federal prison sentence in Canada. According to Dr. Dickey and Ms. Petersen, homosexual transsexuals do not generally have the degree of aggressiveness or psychopathy necessary to get them into a Canadian federal prison. The transsexuals that Dr. Hucker has encountered in the correctional setting tend, he says, to be “more ambiguous” in their sexual orientation… Dr. Dickey, Dr. Hucker and Ms. Petersen all say that they would be very concerned about putting a pre-operative male to female heterosexual transsexual inmate in a women’s prison, given the risk that the inmate would prey on female prisoners.”

The quote is real, but it’s heavily cherrypicked. The full quote can be found here and contains some significant flaws:

Further, Dr. Dickey queries why a homosexual male to female transsexual would want to move to a women’s prison

straight trans woman would want to moved to a women’s prison because she is a woman. She’d likely also want to move prisons because she’d be raped: trans women have sexual victimization rates of over 30% in men’s prisons.

Even more problematically, the case that the testimony comes from (Kavanagh vs Canada) had the conclusion that Kavanagh’s placement in a male prison violated her rights.

The physicians being cited testified over 17 years ago and the medical consensus has gradually shifted.

Then there is the concern that some transwomen may be a danger to children.  There have been several cases of transwomen in prison for sexual assault on, and even murder of, children.

Then there is the concern that some ciswomen may be a danger to children.  There have been several cases of ciswomen in prison for sexual assault on, and even murder of, children.

There is even documentation of two pedophiles seeking to transition and receive medical interventions who admitted a belief that as women their interest in being around children would be more socially acceptable!

I’d love to read the “documentation”, but I don’t think it’s surprising that some pedophiles have perverse motivations for doing any of the actions in their lives. This shouldn’t reflect upon trans women as a group, it just goes to show that pedophiles should never be in general population.

Denying it does not serve the transgender community.

A common tactic of Brown’s is to claim that some substantial or relevant portion of the trans communities or of trans activists deny that “bad trans people”™ exist when she never (or rarely) provides concrete examples.

Transfolk’s sexual orientation, etiology (taxonomic diagnoses), and surgical status must be considered but no hard and fast rule applied.

I don’t see how trans people’s sexual orientations are relevant here. Are we claiming that lesbian women should have their sexual orientation taken into account as to where they are going to be housed in prisons?

 A transwoman who has ever exhibited violent or sexual crimes (not including prostitution) should NEVER be housed in a women’s facility regardless of current surgical status.  That is to say, a rapist has forfeited the privilege and the prison system shouldn’t provide new victims to a predator.

Do we apply the same standards to:

a) cis women

b) cis men

Because anything else is outright transphobia. It’s not that I disagree with separating rapists from the general population on some abstract principle, but that it should a policy that’s implemented equitably among varying gender identities.


Owo I’ve been noticed

(Post in question)

The title, of course, is a reference to the owo bulge meme and the notice me senpai meme which have been amalgamated into a single phrase.

The second best, for an academic, is to be noticed and incompetently mocked.

Here’s the issue Kay: labeling me as incompetent while refusing to refute or acknowledge any of my arguments makes it seem as if you cannot accept or refute criticism.

Oh… and it will attempt to “debunk Blanchardianism”… you know… just like biblical creationists / “intelligent design” science denialists attempt to “debunk Darwinism”.

The comparison of a questionable at best sexologist “theory” about the etiology of transgenderism (to use an unpopular word) to an extremely well-supported theory about evolution that has been replicated thousands of times by tens of thousands of scientists is disingenuous. Many of Blanchard’s claims have not been replicated by the studies that Brown professes that support the typology, and Nuttbrock et al’s reply to Lawrence’s comment on their studies is a great read on how Blanchard’s typology is limited in its usefulness and application.

Be sure to compare these science denialisms with my Silly Objections list and play “Silly Objections Bingo”:

I guess my next article will have to be about your list, but unfortunately you fail to refute any of the criticisms, but instead label them as “silly objections”. Data-supported, legitimate criticisms are not to be dismissed in order to reify a series of hypotheses.

You’ll note that the only ones that I “satisfy” are (and can support, have supported and will support with evidence):

“Not ALL transwomen fit the two types!”

“Women are autogynephilic too! It’s just normal female sexuality.  They are just ‘female embodiment fantasies’ ”

“Autogynephilia is just an effect of gender dysphoria.”

Although my hypothesis on the last one is a bit more nuanced than that

“Straight (androphilic) transwomen are autogynephilic too!”

Replace “are” with “can be” and then I’ll agree

“There’s no proof.  It’s only a theory.  That data has never been replicated.” (ignoring the half-dozen referenced peer reviewed papers with data from over a thousand subjects)

Many of Blanchard’s claims have not been replicated, while some of his others claims have been.

“That hypothesis is unfalsifiable so it is pseudo-scientific bullshit!” (ignoring the fact that autogynephilia and sexual orientation are directly observable behaviors)

The unfalsifiable part that people are referring to is that bisexual, lesbian and asexual trans women are deemed liars if they do not fit Blanchard’s typology. If all exceptions are dismissed as fraudulent data, then there can be no rejection to the theory. And I would contest the claim that sexual orientation is directly observable, but that’s for another day.

Possibly this one:

“Early transitioners didn’t express autogynephilia because they started HRT (or puberty blockers) before they developed erections.”



Here Be Liars

(Post in question)

Autogynephilia in cis women does exist. Denying the facts is just harmful to the cis women in question. It’s science-denying and it prevents them from fully expressing their sexuality.

Now that was mostly satire, but what I said about the existence of autogynephilia in cis women is true.

First, there is the wonderfully creative, if fallacious, redefinition of autogynephilia, the softening of the language, more than simple euphemism, of calling it “female embodiment fantasies”.  How delightfully it allows one to then state that, of course, women naturally see themselves as female embodied as they have sexual fantasies.  See, women are autogynephilic too.  Or, as some twist it around, “Blanchard is defining normal female sexuality as a paraphilia!”

Autogynephilia is stigmatizing. It’s pathologizing. Reconceptualizing it (despite whether cis women have autogynephilia or not) as female embodiment fantasies allows trans women with supposed autogynephilia to feel more comfortable about labeling themselves.

Women are not sexually aroused by, nor become romantically enamored with, their femaleness

Here’s where Kay Brown is wrong. I don’t like the blog or the person here, but they did have a survey that found significant levels of attraction to femaleness among cis women that’s about the same/slightly higher than in trans women. Furthermore, Veale et. al 2008 used Blanchard’s scale and found that cis women do qualify as autogynephilic.

But that is what autogynephilia is… sexual arousal and/or romantic attachment to the contemplation of becoming or being female in and of itself.

So, definitionally cis women have autogynephilia

If autogynephilia were an effect of gender dysphoria and a female gender identity, we would predict several consequences from that effect to show up in the data.  We would expect that those who were the most gender dysphoric from an early age, those who are the most naturally feminine from an early age, those who transition the soonest, to report the most autogynephilia.

This ignores at least one of the Blanchardianist skeptics argument about the origin of autogynephilia: that autogynephilia is a result of being closeted and internalizing gender dysphoria for long periods of time. If an individual is open about their gender dysphoria (see: ‘early transitioners’), then they would not have the decades of denial and internalization that the closeted individuals do (see: ‘late transitioners’). Having the highest level of gender dysphoria does not necessitate that autogynephilia is developed, but rather that the internalization of gender dysphoria does. She homogenizes anti-Blanchardianist arguments into one neat and nice strawman that she tears down.

 In Nuttbrock (2009), those who had begun Hormone Replacement Therapy as teenagers only 14% reported having any autogynephilic arousal to cross-dressing compared to 82% of the gynephilic subjects (of whom only one had started HRT as a teen).

This could alternatively lead to the conclusion that transition reduces and/or prevents autogynephilia from developing. This conclusion is further supported by evidence of reduction of FEFs/AGP after transition in adults.

Further, if it is an effect of gender dysphoria and of a female gender identity, we would expect that only those who experience gender dysphoria and claim a female gender identity, to experience autogynephilia

The contention that autogynephilia is a result of both gender dysphoria and a female gender identity is a vicious strawman for a few reasons. The idea that autogynephilia is a result of gender dysphoria and a female gender identity is only posited as a single etiology, which does not preclude the possibility of other etiologies of autogynephilia in individuals of different gender identities.

Blanchard, sillyolme

Do Blanchardians Have Good Intentions?

(Article in reference)

Following the rule of every headline has an answer of no, I’m going to argue that they don’t.

Blanchard, Bailey, & Lawrence… just listing them evokes waves of antipathy in the transgender communities, especially among late transitioning transwomen.  Ask many of them and you will be told that these three are hateful transphobes… in spite of copious evidence to the contrary.  But why?

There is actually like an enormous amount of evidence that Blanchard is a transphobe, so much that I’d argue it’s undeniable. The other two I can possibly see twisted reasoning as to why they’re not transphobes.


There’s a good article that summarizes how he views trans women from Andrea James’ website here.

“Not only do they see us as men, but they also consider transsexual women to be liars, guilty of “systematic distortion.” Below is an abstract from a Blanchard paper (when Blanchard says “heterosexual” and uses male pronouns, he means transsexual women attracted to women):”

The tendency for a heterosexual subject to describe himself in terms of moral excellence or admirable personal qualities was significantly correlated with scores in the ‘transsexual’ direction on all eight sexological measures; for the homosexual subjects, only one correlation was significant. [… It] is possible that the differences in the histories produced by transvestites and heterosexual transsexuals are exaggerated to an unknown degree by the motivation of the latter to obtain approval for this operation. The findings do not diminish the important distinction between these groups, but they do suggest caution in interpreting the self-report data that have been used in comparing them.

He also called postoperative trans women “men without penises”;

” Toronto psychologist Ray Blanchard, one of Canada’s leading — and most controversial — gender experts, argues the transgendered movement is rife with delusion. “This is not waving a magic wand and a man becomes a woman and vice versa,” he says. “It’s something that has to be taken very seriously. A man without a penis has certain disadvantages in this world, and this is in reality what you’re creating.”

He also regularly retweets transphobic and TERF content; for example this recent retweet stating that trans women are not women. And his retweet of 4th Wave Now. And his retweet of Transgender Trend. And several TERFs.

I’ll probably go into Bailey and Lawrence at another date.

A recent paper (Hannikainen 2018) explores the issue of lay people conflating the results of science research with the scientist’s ideology.  The study showed that there is a tendency to ascribe motivation “to prove” an hypotheses rather than simply to test one.  Further, this tendency, this effect, was more pronounced if the results, the data, were disagreeable to the individual evaluating the scientist by his results.

Here’s the issue. There are scientists who attempt to prove their hypotheses rather than test them. And I’d argue Anne Lawrence is probably the epitome of this type of scientist. Every single paper that is released on transgender individuals and their sexualities, she’s comments on it, “reinterprets it” (read: twists, ignores and lies about) and comes to the conclusion that every study that criticizes the Blanchardianist typology (most notably Nuttbrock et alsupports it. When new data showing that Blanchard’s claims are false, she does the same thing.


Kenneth Zucker is Still Bad – And Not An Ally To Trans People

As always, the post in question.

It’s a short post;

CAMH has issued a public apology for publishing false and defamatory statements about Dr. Zucker and his methods in treating transkids.  (I’ll hold my breath waiting for our community to do the same….)  As part of the vindication, CAMH is paying over half a million dollars as reparations and legal costs.

Interestingly, she gets a very easy fact wrong, probably because she forgot she’s American and Zucker is Canadian. The amounts listed in the settlement are $400000, $11000, $175000. This totals to $586,000 in Canadian dollars. When we convert this to American dollars, by the use of the handy Google converter, we note that is it significantly less at a sum of $451,000 American dollars.

Interestingly, the report has been removed and the alleged victim of Zucker’s ire has been erased and deemed a liar.

Regardless, Kenneth Zucker is decidedly not an ally of trans individuals.

He regularly retweets TERFs and TERF rhetoric (one example of three hours ago at the time of writing this post). I agree with some of the critiques in the tweet, decontextualized from the poster, their comments and their views on trans people, but the fact that Zucker retweeted such an egregiously transphobic poster is problematic to say the least.

He retweets Megan Murphy, 4th Wave Now and Fair Play for Women

He is further platformed by transphobes and ROGD-pushers; here

He is widely (NARTH) cited (LeaderU) by anti-gay groups that seek to convert gay children to straight (a practice now shown to be ineffective and that has been condemned by virtually all medical organizations in the United States).

He’s also been noted by his allies to perform conversion therapy on trans kids (using the real meaning, not Kay Brown’s bullshit meaning);

Zucker thinks that an important goal of treatment is to help the children accept their birth sex and to avoid becoming transsexual. His experience has convinced him that if a boy with GID becomes an adolescent with GID, the chances that he will become an adult with GID and seek a sex change are much higher. And he thinks that the kind of therapy he practices helps reduce this risk. Zucker emphasizes a three-pronged treatment approach for boys with GID. First, he thinks that family dynamics play a large role in childhood GID—not necessarily in the origins of cross-gendered behavior, but in their persistence. It is the disordered and chaotic family, according to Zucker, that can’t get its act together to present a consistent and sensible reaction to the child, which would be something like the following: “We love you, but you are a boy, not a girl. Wishing to be a girl will only make you unhappy in the long run, and pretending to be a girl will only make your life around others harder.” So the first prong of Zucker’s approach is family therapy. Whatever conflicts or issues that parents have that prevent them from uniting to help their child must be addressed.

The second prong is therapy for the boy, to help him adjust to the idea that he cannot become a girl, and to help teach him how to minimize social ostracism. Zucker does not teach boys how to walk in a manly fashion, but he does give them feedback about the likely consequences of taking a doll to school.

The third prong is key. Zucker says simply: “The Barbies have to go.” He has nothing against Barbie dolls, of course. He means something more general. Feminine toys and accoutrements—including Barbie dolls, girls’ shoes, dresses, purses, and princess gowns—are no longer to be tolerated at home, much less bought for the child. Zucker believes that toleration and encouragement of feminine play and dress prevents the child from accepting his maleness. Common sense says that a boy who wants to play with dolls so much that he is willing to risk his father’s wrath and his peers’ scorn is unlikely to change his behavior due to inconsistent feedback, sometimes forbidding, sometimes tolerating, and sometimes even encouraging it. Inconsistent parenting like this is ineffective in stamping out any kind of unwanted behavior.

Failure to intervene increases the chances of transsexualism in adulthood, which Zucker considers a bad outcome. … Why put boys at risk for this when they can become gay men happy to be men?

His practices are similarly gender normative, and would be condemned by any consistent anti-gender radical feminist (such as myself).

I could go on, but I think it’s self-evident that he supports conversion therapy and is deeply connected with transphobic and homophobic organizations.