Not a tiny enough violin is right. These articles go out of their way not to mention when they’re sexual predators, which they frequently are. Disgusting.
Perfectly put. It's hiding those harmed by women too. This 'well women don't commit crimes' view so if all men identify as women it's problem solved. It's a twisted reactionary view and gender stereotyping identity bolloxology that only seems to benefit abusers and those that wish to hide their actions. Mothers are all saints and men are all rapists.
Anti-Feminism seems to have mutated into MRA and TRA. Picking and choosing which gender stereotypes get you the main perceived 'advantage'. Some men really seem to think all women hate them and women are the most advantaged and protected sex class despite being mean to boys and men. Some women think this too. When the data on males killing males or males killing females, or females killing females or females killing males shows what patterns are. We are confusing what male/female/gay/lesbian/bi mean. We've added in enby/they/them/trans/whatever as some kind of extra special meaning for whatever we choose. Sex and gender and sexual attraction all mean the same to many. So a little girl called Star was murdered by her mum's girlfriend and her mum. We can't declare new groups to be untouchable because of some twisted political correctness. Protected characteristics are being used as shields to avoid scrutiny and reframe actual vulnerabilities.
I keep reading online that the evolution of trans is all the fault of women demanding rights. Women got the vote and that's when the rot set in. So we deserve this. We destroyed society. We demanded men's rights taken from them (no, no I didn't what are you calling a right) and got uppity and mean and withheld sex or started wanting sex and rejected them, so we deserve this. All women got too greedy and wanted to be paid an equal wage for our labour too so it's just a rebalancing for men to take it all back, and more to teach us a lesson. We'll take your words too. Marriage means you can't rape your child bride you say? Who says I'm not allowed? But that's a man's right, we'll see about that. Put 'em back in their place.
Some people cannot do boundaries. Women show men a boundary, and some are saying, no, no boundary, and for having the temerity to stand up for yourself, set your own boundaries and make choices I'll have yours too. I'll be a man AND a woman and I'd like to see you try and stop me.
Or I'll be a woman and insist I'm a man, then become pregnant through modern medical magic, then still insist I'm a man, and insist I'm recorded as the child's father. I'm not sure whether that's a rejection of womanhood, stereotypes, reality, patriarchy or what.
Some, particularly anyone who's prominent, sees advocating trans rights as being advantageous to them. They are standing with the most marginalised and discriminated against people. They're showing others how to be kind like them, and not a bigot like all those hateful terfs.Then they get to feel good about themselves, they are told they're good, they tell one a other they're good. Anyone who doesn't parrot what they parrot, such as some women have penises, or some men have periods, etc, is a possible transphobe. Anyone who challenges these claims, is a fascistic monster who wants trans people dead.
Someone I know called me a transphobe on twitter because I said I wouldn't support the Green Party because of their lack of support for women's rights. I'm so annoyed at this comment (from a woman in her 30s) that I want to react. She definitely sees it as some woke badge - she said it was outrageous not to support the most marginalised and discriminated people. I don't want a twitter debate - it's not going to help either of us. But it's really galling to be labelled like this. My kids are so mad at me for tweeting anything at all. I am debating if worth a response or I just ignore her forever.
Perhaps the woman who called you a transphobe doesn't really know what she's supporting. Many people don't. As for trans people being marginalised and discriminated against, some will be, their lives are going to be variable as the majority of people's are. The organisations that claim to support them and speak for trans people, among many others, is well organised, well funded, powerful and highly influential. These are hardly features of marginalisation. They are features of the misogynistic patriarchy, however, and it's found another way to regulate and redefine women under and extremely flimsy guise of liberal progressiveness.
Womenhood becomes a something internal, a feeling men can claim as theirs without losing any of their privileges. I don't believe this describes the experience of all men who identify as transwomen, but as we see, trans identity can amount to nothing more than words. It can be assumed by men with a variety of motives, and many of them harmful to women. Men aren't compromised in the slightest. As far as transmen are concerned, they seem to be the ones doing all the work to gain acceptance as male. Yet they represent no threat to men or the freedoms men have in any respect. The trans rights movement is a man's right movement that legitimises the abuse of women.
It's to be hoped that eventually this occurs to the woman you encountered on Twitter, and she doesn't experience having it proved to her explicitly at her own cost.
Absolutely. Thanks for such a thoughtful response. I was thinking that she doesn’t know what she is saying and that she is too young (and privileged? But I hate using that word as it can be weaponised) to have understood. Or she is wearing the badge and she is so publicly invested in that persona and image as some kind of progressive champion. I probably should reach out to get to speak face-to-face as that’s the best way to resolve things. Sigh. Takes energy to do that…. I will have to decide if it’s worth it. I would love to send my thoughts along the lines of your insightful response but I’m going to discipline myself not to engage further on Twitter (and not open the app this weekend). I don’t want to be as ‘performative’ as she is. I do hate that I have to think about this and censor myself but it is our new reality with this issue and social media. Sometimes I do listen to my kids.
Having some time off Twitter is probably a good idea. I don't interact with with social media at all, it's too censorious and unbalanced. Allow yourself a more relaxing weekend ;) x
In my opinion the learning disabled are the most marginalised in society. Face huge prejudices. Discriminated against even before birth. And that gets you shouted down.
Soooooo the male inmates aren’t on him cause he’s “trans” but b/c he’s got a dirty sheet. And he wanted to hide out in the female prison to avoid a beat down. Maybe he plans on reoffending. Sounds about right. TIMs are not persecuted in male prisons. It’s a myth. They are considered women substitutes and are actually treated with some respect. Unless they are a nonce.
TIMs even run sections of the prison. They’ve got their own gang-type situation in some places. Men fight over these guys cause they are like prison wifey. All kinds of crazy. Sure there may be TIMs who are abused but there are always non-TIMs who get that too. But mostly men don’t treat them with the same aggression cause it’s not a good look to bully or beat on a man who the inmates look on as sort of a pseudo woman.
I'm really fascinated by this. My degree is psychology and they didn't cover this. It was gendered perceptions of crimes and mental illness by society and the media we looked at. But not gender and interactions between inmates.
Me too. Can I ask what was covered in your degree? Did you cover morals, ethics, or prison cultures as a reflection (or not) of wider society? Bentham's Panopticon? Psychology of groups, hierarchies or in and out groups? Of deviancy or conflict? Power? I am a bit surprised that wasn't covered in forensic psychology, and that's not doubting you at all, but the course structure and purpose.
We covered this, like the famous US 'prison experiments', then options applying psychology to specific areas like health, organisations and organisational health at A level, then as prep for undergraduate level. Experimentation on vulnerable groups. Psychology of HR and time and motion studies through to modern and corporate human observation, productivity and management. I then did further study with applications to space and place and back around again to human machine interaction and built environment.
This is a while ago now though :-). I wonder how much has changed (and why and how).
I'm actually surprised you did corporate or HR psychology tbh. That seems like a specialisation. There were many general psychology modules - big focus on the cognitive neuroscience fields, social construction, language development, perception and attention, identity, evolutionary psychology, learning, biological processes and psychology explanations, individual difference etc. We also get taught to develop and run our own psychology studies.
I'd like to point out that what's happening now will impact future psychology degrees. And at the moment discourse is being suppressed. (I only did one module in forensic psychology. Not a whole degree. Inmate interactions might be in that.) As forensic psychology four years ago didn't have this as an issue, males in with females, it might not have affected forensic psychology the way it will do. So interactions may be a big future focus. It will impact future psychology when we get to study it and teach it.
It may well be referred to as the Gender Wars. We're on the ground battling this as well as we can. :(
Thank you. That was only A level so pretty basic. It came under organisational health (the choice modules). I did the course in a year at evening classes, and I was the only one squeezing it into one year, so yes, did cover a lot. That was in prep for my undergrad studies twenty years ago and I'm surprised at how much has changed since. I got people to mark a piece of work and if they did so differently according to the name of the author. For some reason the female name was marked higher by my brilliantly scientifically stratified sample population and there was lots of complex analysis of why ;-)
Yes, what's happening has stretched across academia. What has happened with the Gender Studies at LSE was accepted seemingly without a doubt.
Moral and ethics are covered in there too. Surveillance is an issue of prison set up, it's effects on the person would be covered by the therapist in therapy.
I do have a recollection of prison set up being in there actually. I'm not neurotypical so your very general question about a massive subject kind of made my brain go waaaaaa.... Apologies if I've sounded grumpy in my answer :)
My degree was enormous and I really can't give you a list of the thousands of things we covered. I'm really sorry, I'd be here all day. Some of the stuff you mention is covered in the general psychology modules, like Tajfel's social identity theory (in and out groups). I did one module of counselling and forensic psychology. The focus was on mental health and criminal behaviour, how criminals are viewed by professionals, society and the media. I'll list all the chapters of the book if you like.
Part I: Setting the scene: 1. Working therapeutically in forensic settings 2. historical overview 3. media representations 4. diagnosis and categorisation
Part II. different identities 5. race 6. gender 7. age 8. class
Part III. Sex and sexuality in mental health and crime 9. sexual assault and abuse 10. sex and sexuality in the therapy room 11. paraphilias 12. sex work
Part IV. treatment 13. attachment-based approaches 14. cognitive behavioural therapy 15. systemic approaches 16. mindfulness
Part V. dichotomies in forensic and therapeutic practice 17. memory 18. self-harm and suicide 19. contexts 20. prevention.
I hope that helps a bit. It was about perception of crime and treatment of criminals. Forensic psychology is about the mental health of criminals and how to help them in the criminal setting. How to give therapy. Specific dynamics between criminals is interesting but it's not really the focus of forensic psychology. I hope that helps. :)
Aha! Didn't expect the book chapters! Thank you. I do know what forensic psychology is, not a problem. Have you been inside any prisons? I find them astonishing. And me being in them even more so ;-)
I was horrified to discover the roots of 'big P' Psychiatry and Psychology and the experimentation and odd DSM labels and how things got in. What still strikes me is how theories of knowledge often come down to a few individuals, friends and colleagues or even one person constructing their own theories, then the branch of study is created, then that's the formal academic way of viewing everything, then that's the way all (mental) health is approached for ever more. Then it's the dualling theorists and we ended up with an offshoot of LSE Gender Studies, so decades later that is now being taught, in Unis as truth and fact and the only way. It becomes policy in the NHS. And a man like Mat(t) Thompson can stand up and be rewarded and encouraged for it. And do a degree, a further degree in it and be celebrated and asked to present his findings at conference - https://twitter.com/LSEengenderings/status/1398209022197747713
Power and Language and who gets to shape ours. I remember studying cases about black people using certain terms in 1990s Britain as a good example of being labelled as 'mad' as those assessing them were so ignorant of others, and anyone outside their own class or educational bubble or the words they used. How talking about the dead, loss, grief and culturally important motifs and beliefs was assumed to be delusional psychosis.
I think a term like “sexually assaulted” is too euphemistic in this case. It wasn’t some grope on the bus: he kidnapped, held hostage, and raped a 14-year-old girl.
I feel no sympathy for this guy, and shame on NPR for the propaganda they push. However, it’s about time that our prison system figures out how to keep people safe while they are housed in these institutions.
Putting sex offenders in the women’s facility is just crazy.
Couldn't agree more. The US penitentiary system is horrifyingly backwards and brutal. It must be reformed. For everyone's safety. Just please without putting women at risk.
So NPR are either untrained and crap at their jobs (unlikely) or deliberately withholding the full story (which swings them from journalists to propagandists). Great. Bravo. Well fucking done.
They are crap at their jobs. About the only good things you might hear on NPR are feature stories, and I feel the same way about PBS and the BBC. They question nothing, they just repeat government propaganda of the most vile sort, and they're fully on board with whatever their big donors tell them to do and say. If you could see what comes out of journalism/communications schools in the U.S. you'd bang your head against a concrete wall.
" The new Sacred Class " is a very apt description of this movement ,which is apparently in charge of EVERYTHING and can get Laws changed in their favour by claiming to be the most vulnerable and marginalised group of people in the world . How can Governments fall for this nonsense ? Do they not look at the evidence to the contrary ? Nobody has yet explained what rights " trans "people do NOT have !! Crazy .👎👎
That's what I keep asking too - what rights exactly do they not already have? Oh yes, the right to womens' single sex spaces, the right to compromise women's safety, the right to redefine what a woman is and erode those sex-based rights...
Yes, it's a crime if you're a man but if you have the magic-girly-unicorn-loving-pink n fluffy feeling inside then no matter what you do with bits of your anatomy, it's ok! At least that's the message received by jounalists looking the other way, the prison system, the legal system and many, many more virtue signalling f***tards.
Imagine, if you will, a class of mentally disturbed people asking for their disturbance to be validated, not only to be validated but respected — you WILL respect us — remember that one? But validation and respect alone do not appease. Declarations of bravery and beauty, and recognition as avatars of a New Trans Age are current demands. In alarmingly few years, there has been the remarkable “transition” from mental disturbance to bodhisattva consciousness.
What does "validation" even mean? They hurl big words into the debate and you are expected to just nod. This is one of the reasons why this escalated.
"Validation" here means: Well, OK, we are supposing that someone else isn't just putting up an act. This is a mental health issue, so, yes I believe that most of these people aren't just putting up an act, save the "non binaries". That doesn't mean that they didn't talk themselves into the whole thing.
What they mean by "validation" is: There is actually people who were born in the wrong body and that they are among them. In other words: How they feel about themselves is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, but more importantly, the actual, the surpreme truth about human beings.
Certainly one aspect. Particularly with "non binaries". But it's fair to say that the lack of attention certainly is something that drives this socially induced explosion of Gender Dysphoria in teenage girls. A lack of attention by their parents and a society who thinks that with all the progress made for women over the past decades growing up as a girl is just an easy job. (Heck, even growing up as a boy isn't easy, and we have it far better than girls.)
It's hard in a different way. Some aspects are certainly harder than for girls. Like, who ever takes a 15 yo or 16 yo boy seriously, what with the akward voice and all. Not to belittle the sexist threats she gets, but Greta Thunberg probably would not have become the voice of the younger generation's climate movement had she been a boy at that age. But overall, it is quite a bit easier for us than for women.
I have little sympathy for he guy. Still: Prison, particularly in the US, unfortunately is there to break people. It shouldn't be. It does not resocialize people, it de-socializes them. He was broken just like anyone else in there. This shouldn't have happened. To no one. It is my firm conviction that even someone who raped a 14 year old girl should be safe from assault in prison. "Gender identity" does not play a role in any of this, though., and it must not.
Prison should reform those people that can be reformed, and put away those people for good who will always be a threat to people. Both can and should be done humanely, even in the case of sexual offenders.
That being said: Putting guys like him together with women would make it worse for everyone else involved, except him. To reform a dysfunctional and harmful prison system can not consist of making sure it puts even more people at risk and breaks them even harder. Which is exactly what the aim of this sob story is.
Might putting him in with women make it worse for everyone involved, INCLUDING him? If it presents him with more opportunities for re-offending, it might scupper any chances he might have had of becoming a better person.
That, too. In a more rational penitentiary system he may have the chance. In the US system, well, I don't think that's a realistic option. But any way you look at it, it is insane to even think about putting a man into a woman's prison.
I don't think so. If you listen to some of the men who have been caught with child porn, they are undeterred by anything. I kept asking myself why do they keep doing it when they know that state law enforcement is tracking them? They are compulsive, but that's only part of the explanation; they are also extremely entitled and feel they have the right to women's and children's bodies.
Oh, yes, they mean it as a deterrent, but of course it doesn't work. I have very ambivalent feelings about prison; there are definitely some people who belong there, but there are lot of people who really could function outside with some help -- Bill Clinton did a lot to make sure they didn't get any -- and who are not a threat to women and children.
The vast majority of people in prison do not belong there. Violent offenders are relatively rare in there, and even many of those could be reformed in much better ways. But of course, you'd need a functional welfare system for that to happend and that's something rich people don't want to pay for. Even though it keeps them a lot safer, too.
I'm not sure I agree with you about the violent offenders. If a man is imprisoned at age 20 for getting into a bar fight and someone was killed accidentally, I totally agree. But the criminally insane as they are termed can never be freed. My husband did a rotation at the state hospital for the criminally insane and he thought he might be interested, but the other nurses told him to forget it, it was horrible and violent. The feds came in to supervise and it's supposed to be better. My sister toured the wing in Illinois (Joliet) where Richard Speck (mass murderer of nurses) was imprisoned, and it was pretty weird.
I don't think any society knows what to do with such men. We certainly don't pay attention to not creating them in the first place. I personally believe that people such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, George W Bush, etc, belong in prison because the rest of us need to be protected from them. But they will never be because we reward sociopathy.
All this said, Chris, I think I finally figured out your religion. You believe in progress, a notion lifted from the Bible (!) and capitalism. I threw progress out the window long ago with help from the likes of Stephen Jay Gould; progress would be an extremely fit subject for a group of skeptics, much better than discussing homeopathy or Bigfoot!
Hi, Penny, I haven't yet read the Covert Action Magazine piece about Bill and his ties to the CIA; they also have one about reopening the Vince Foster murder case. Bill and Hillary are the lowest of the low, two utterly sociopathic people, and I did manage to read most of the assassination story about Ron Brown, Commerce Secretary during Clinton's administration who told Clinton he was going to have to talk because he was being subpoenaed by so many federal agencies. Never tell a Clinton you're going to have to talk!
During Clinton's administration, he removed banking regulation; denied education, housing, and food programs to ex-prisoners; destroyed welfare; destroyed Yugoslavia; and countless other misdeeds. They are both so foul it's hard to believe they are even human beings.
It isn't. If harsh punishment were a deterrent, the USA wouldn't have the highest crime rate of any developped nation. No other developped country has as harsh, as brutal and as backward a prison system and a criminal justice system. The only thing that deters people from comitting crimes is a high likelihood of getting caught and convicted.
Oh I know, I'm a psychologist, part of my degree was forensic psychology. I was just saying that is part of what they're intending. Yeah the three strikes system is brutal for example. If they're still doing that.
I wanted to be sure that it was true that NPR omitted the tiny detail of this person's crime of raping a child. I trust journalists like Gluck on 4W from what I have seen so far. This is a new low for NPR (National Public Radio) especially. In case you don't live in the US and aren't familiar, NPR is partly government funded. It is considered to be center-left and known for solid, thoughtful and rigorous journalism. It is impossible for me to believe the reporter would not have known he was painting such a sympathetic portrait of a child rapist. Friendly clarification Trev--although the founder MK Fain started the project of 4W after she was fired for her job for defending women's sex-based rights, it's not a journal "for cancelled women." 4W is by and for women about issues that affect us (and good info for men too!). Their work is well worth following and supporting.
Ahhh, thanks for the clarification, Elizabeth, I'll give it a read then.
I was vaguely aware of NPR's reputation so this does surprise me. The piece would have presumably been vetted by an editor so you do have to wonder why the elephant in the room didn't attract even a passing mention. A quiet change in policy thanks to TRAs slipping brain-change pills into the coffeemaker, perhaps? It will be interesting to see if NPR offers any further clarification on this. Maybe we should all go and ask this journalist some difficult questions on Twitter.
NPR for Christ's sake. I guess this is to provide cover for Biden’s next executive order allowing trans-/non-binary-/ and female identifying male inmates in Federal prison to self-ID their way into women's correctional facility-spaces.
The trouble is, this scenario isn’t unusual. Sexual predator in prison suddenly decides he’s a woman, shud enjoy extra privileges and b in a women’s prison [= opportunity to cross the threshold to assault/ rape more (trapped) women) ‘cos he’s a victim…boo hoo…Welcome to the new dog collar/swim coach’s whistle that gets the paedo a free pass… 😱😱😱😡😤😠
I'll bet they did no background check. Our "reporters" in the U.S. ask no questions even regarding noncontroversial issues, they don't research information before interviewing someone, they're incredibly lazy. And half of them are minimally literate.
Yes, and it's now all about feelings over facts. 'Lift up' someone's 'personal truth', a 'narrative'. Thinking that a journalist's chief job is to seek to uncover the objective facts behind a potential news story and dispassionately relay them so as to provide information to better inform everyone is so last century. Nah, just (at most) shove mic at random person, ask how they feel, apply RightThink filter and vocab, job done.
Democracies absolutely depend on sources of information doing their jobs. We're f*cked.
I’ve noticed over the years that interviews of prisoners and former prisoners who are reform advocates often omit or minimize their crimes. At least, they do this when the crimes are violent. Fraudsters and some drug dealer types are frank about their histories. This is egregious, though.
I remember when National Public Radio (NPR) was a respected news institution. If local NPR radio stations still receive significant funding from listener donations, they better expect to kiss that $$ goodbye.
Not a tiny enough violin is right. These articles go out of their way not to mention when they’re sexual predators, which they frequently are. Disgusting.
It's a notable extension to the gender extremist fetishising trans women by believing they are incapable of wrong.
Perfectly put. It's hiding those harmed by women too. This 'well women don't commit crimes' view so if all men identify as women it's problem solved. It's a twisted reactionary view and gender stereotyping identity bolloxology that only seems to benefit abusers and those that wish to hide their actions. Mothers are all saints and men are all rapists.
Anti-Feminism seems to have mutated into MRA and TRA. Picking and choosing which gender stereotypes get you the main perceived 'advantage'. Some men really seem to think all women hate them and women are the most advantaged and protected sex class despite being mean to boys and men. Some women think this too. When the data on males killing males or males killing females, or females killing females or females killing males shows what patterns are. We are confusing what male/female/gay/lesbian/bi mean. We've added in enby/they/them/trans/whatever as some kind of extra special meaning for whatever we choose. Sex and gender and sexual attraction all mean the same to many. So a little girl called Star was murdered by her mum's girlfriend and her mum. We can't declare new groups to be untouchable because of some twisted political correctness. Protected characteristics are being used as shields to avoid scrutiny and reframe actual vulnerabilities.
I keep reading online that the evolution of trans is all the fault of women demanding rights. Women got the vote and that's when the rot set in. So we deserve this. We destroyed society. We demanded men's rights taken from them (no, no I didn't what are you calling a right) and got uppity and mean and withheld sex or started wanting sex and rejected them, so we deserve this. All women got too greedy and wanted to be paid an equal wage for our labour too so it's just a rebalancing for men to take it all back, and more to teach us a lesson. We'll take your words too. Marriage means you can't rape your child bride you say? Who says I'm not allowed? But that's a man's right, we'll see about that. Put 'em back in their place.
Some people cannot do boundaries. Women show men a boundary, and some are saying, no, no boundary, and for having the temerity to stand up for yourself, set your own boundaries and make choices I'll have yours too. I'll be a man AND a woman and I'd like to see you try and stop me.
Or I'll be a woman and insist I'm a man, then become pregnant through modern medical magic, then still insist I'm a man, and insist I'm recorded as the child's father. I'm not sure whether that's a rejection of womanhood, stereotypes, reality, patriarchy or what.
Why? Why? Why? Are so many people and publications falling over themselves to give support to this? It’s beyond comprehension
Some, particularly anyone who's prominent, sees advocating trans rights as being advantageous to them. They are standing with the most marginalised and discriminated against people. They're showing others how to be kind like them, and not a bigot like all those hateful terfs.Then they get to feel good about themselves, they are told they're good, they tell one a other they're good. Anyone who doesn't parrot what they parrot, such as some women have penises, or some men have periods, etc, is a possible transphobe. Anyone who challenges these claims, is a fascistic monster who wants trans people dead.
Someone I know called me a transphobe on twitter because I said I wouldn't support the Green Party because of their lack of support for women's rights. I'm so annoyed at this comment (from a woman in her 30s) that I want to react. She definitely sees it as some woke badge - she said it was outrageous not to support the most marginalised and discriminated people. I don't want a twitter debate - it's not going to help either of us. But it's really galling to be labelled like this. My kids are so mad at me for tweeting anything at all. I am debating if worth a response or I just ignore her forever.
Perhaps the woman who called you a transphobe doesn't really know what she's supporting. Many people don't. As for trans people being marginalised and discriminated against, some will be, their lives are going to be variable as the majority of people's are. The organisations that claim to support them and speak for trans people, among many others, is well organised, well funded, powerful and highly influential. These are hardly features of marginalisation. They are features of the misogynistic patriarchy, however, and it's found another way to regulate and redefine women under and extremely flimsy guise of liberal progressiveness.
Womenhood becomes a something internal, a feeling men can claim as theirs without losing any of their privileges. I don't believe this describes the experience of all men who identify as transwomen, but as we see, trans identity can amount to nothing more than words. It can be assumed by men with a variety of motives, and many of them harmful to women. Men aren't compromised in the slightest. As far as transmen are concerned, they seem to be the ones doing all the work to gain acceptance as male. Yet they represent no threat to men or the freedoms men have in any respect. The trans rights movement is a man's right movement that legitimises the abuse of women.
It's to be hoped that eventually this occurs to the woman you encountered on Twitter, and she doesn't experience having it proved to her explicitly at her own cost.
Absolutely. Thanks for such a thoughtful response. I was thinking that she doesn’t know what she is saying and that she is too young (and privileged? But I hate using that word as it can be weaponised) to have understood. Or she is wearing the badge and she is so publicly invested in that persona and image as some kind of progressive champion. I probably should reach out to get to speak face-to-face as that’s the best way to resolve things. Sigh. Takes energy to do that…. I will have to decide if it’s worth it. I would love to send my thoughts along the lines of your insightful response but I’m going to discipline myself not to engage further on Twitter (and not open the app this weekend). I don’t want to be as ‘performative’ as she is. I do hate that I have to think about this and censor myself but it is our new reality with this issue and social media. Sometimes I do listen to my kids.
Having some time off Twitter is probably a good idea. I don't interact with with social media at all, it's too censorious and unbalanced. Allow yourself a more relaxing weekend ;) x
In my opinion the learning disabled are the most marginalised in society. Face huge prejudices. Discriminated against even before birth. And that gets you shouted down.
Yep, that sums it up rather adequately.
Money. I would bet anything that the TRA billionaires are giving piles of money to NPR, PBS, etc. Money talks and it mostly talks shit.
If that's the case, whistle blowing in the future might start being a thing.
Many reasons, I am afraid, but ultimately a very cheap way of virtue signalling and feeling good about oneself.
They are getting lambasted by people
Soooooo the male inmates aren’t on him cause he’s “trans” but b/c he’s got a dirty sheet. And he wanted to hide out in the female prison to avoid a beat down. Maybe he plans on reoffending. Sounds about right. TIMs are not persecuted in male prisons. It’s a myth. They are considered women substitutes and are actually treated with some respect. Unless they are a nonce.
I didn't know that
TIMs even run sections of the prison. They’ve got their own gang-type situation in some places. Men fight over these guys cause they are like prison wifey. All kinds of crazy. Sure there may be TIMs who are abused but there are always non-TIMs who get that too. But mostly men don’t treat them with the same aggression cause it’s not a good look to bully or beat on a man who the inmates look on as sort of a pseudo woman.
I'm really fascinated by this. My degree is psychology and they didn't cover this. It was gendered perceptions of crimes and mental illness by society and the media we looked at. But not gender and interactions between inmates.
Me too. Can I ask what was covered in your degree? Did you cover morals, ethics, or prison cultures as a reflection (or not) of wider society? Bentham's Panopticon? Psychology of groups, hierarchies or in and out groups? Of deviancy or conflict? Power? I am a bit surprised that wasn't covered in forensic psychology, and that's not doubting you at all, but the course structure and purpose.
We covered this, like the famous US 'prison experiments', then options applying psychology to specific areas like health, organisations and organisational health at A level, then as prep for undergraduate level. Experimentation on vulnerable groups. Psychology of HR and time and motion studies through to modern and corporate human observation, productivity and management. I then did further study with applications to space and place and back around again to human machine interaction and built environment.
This is a while ago now though :-). I wonder how much has changed (and why and how).
I'm actually surprised you did corporate or HR psychology tbh. That seems like a specialisation. There were many general psychology modules - big focus on the cognitive neuroscience fields, social construction, language development, perception and attention, identity, evolutionary psychology, learning, biological processes and psychology explanations, individual difference etc. We also get taught to develop and run our own psychology studies.
I'd like to point out that what's happening now will impact future psychology degrees. And at the moment discourse is being suppressed. (I only did one module in forensic psychology. Not a whole degree. Inmate interactions might be in that.) As forensic psychology four years ago didn't have this as an issue, males in with females, it might not have affected forensic psychology the way it will do. So interactions may be a big future focus. It will impact future psychology when we get to study it and teach it.
It may well be referred to as the Gender Wars. We're on the ground battling this as well as we can. :(
Thank you. That was only A level so pretty basic. It came under organisational health (the choice modules). I did the course in a year at evening classes, and I was the only one squeezing it into one year, so yes, did cover a lot. That was in prep for my undergrad studies twenty years ago and I'm surprised at how much has changed since. I got people to mark a piece of work and if they did so differently according to the name of the author. For some reason the female name was marked higher by my brilliantly scientifically stratified sample population and there was lots of complex analysis of why ;-)
Yes, what's happening has stretched across academia. What has happened with the Gender Studies at LSE was accepted seemingly without a doubt.
Moral and ethics are covered in there too. Surveillance is an issue of prison set up, it's effects on the person would be covered by the therapist in therapy.
I do have a recollection of prison set up being in there actually. I'm not neurotypical so your very general question about a massive subject kind of made my brain go waaaaaa.... Apologies if I've sounded grumpy in my answer :)
My degree was enormous and I really can't give you a list of the thousands of things we covered. I'm really sorry, I'd be here all day. Some of the stuff you mention is covered in the general psychology modules, like Tajfel's social identity theory (in and out groups). I did one module of counselling and forensic psychology. The focus was on mental health and criminal behaviour, how criminals are viewed by professionals, society and the media. I'll list all the chapters of the book if you like.
Part I: Setting the scene: 1. Working therapeutically in forensic settings 2. historical overview 3. media representations 4. diagnosis and categorisation
Part II. different identities 5. race 6. gender 7. age 8. class
Part III. Sex and sexuality in mental health and crime 9. sexual assault and abuse 10. sex and sexuality in the therapy room 11. paraphilias 12. sex work
Part IV. treatment 13. attachment-based approaches 14. cognitive behavioural therapy 15. systemic approaches 16. mindfulness
Part V. dichotomies in forensic and therapeutic practice 17. memory 18. self-harm and suicide 19. contexts 20. prevention.
I hope that helps a bit. It was about perception of crime and treatment of criminals. Forensic psychology is about the mental health of criminals and how to help them in the criminal setting. How to give therapy. Specific dynamics between criminals is interesting but it's not really the focus of forensic psychology. I hope that helps. :)
Aha! Didn't expect the book chapters! Thank you. I do know what forensic psychology is, not a problem. Have you been inside any prisons? I find them astonishing. And me being in them even more so ;-)
I was horrified to discover the roots of 'big P' Psychiatry and Psychology and the experimentation and odd DSM labels and how things got in. What still strikes me is how theories of knowledge often come down to a few individuals, friends and colleagues or even one person constructing their own theories, then the branch of study is created, then that's the formal academic way of viewing everything, then that's the way all (mental) health is approached for ever more. Then it's the dualling theorists and we ended up with an offshoot of LSE Gender Studies, so decades later that is now being taught, in Unis as truth and fact and the only way. It becomes policy in the NHS. And a man like Mat(t) Thompson can stand up and be rewarded and encouraged for it. And do a degree, a further degree in it and be celebrated and asked to present his findings at conference - https://twitter.com/LSEengenderings/status/1398209022197747713
Power and Language and who gets to shape ours. I remember studying cases about black people using certain terms in 1990s Britain as a good example of being labelled as 'mad' as those assessing them were so ignorant of others, and anyone outside their own class or educational bubble or the words they used. How talking about the dead, loss, grief and culturally important motifs and beliefs was assumed to be delusional psychosis.
I think a term like “sexually assaulted” is too euphemistic in this case. It wasn’t some grope on the bus: he kidnapped, held hostage, and raped a 14-year-old girl.
I thought that too, she could have been killef
I feel no sympathy for this guy, and shame on NPR for the propaganda they push. However, it’s about time that our prison system figures out how to keep people safe while they are housed in these institutions.
Putting sex offenders in the women’s facility is just crazy.
Couldn't agree more. The US penitentiary system is horrifyingly backwards and brutal. It must be reformed. For everyone's safety. Just please without putting women at risk.
So NPR are either untrained and crap at their jobs (unlikely) or deliberately withholding the full story (which swings them from journalists to propagandists). Great. Bravo. Well fucking done.
They are crap at their jobs. About the only good things you might hear on NPR are feature stories, and I feel the same way about PBS and the BBC. They question nothing, they just repeat government propaganda of the most vile sort, and they're fully on board with whatever their big donors tell them to do and say. If you could see what comes out of journalism/communications schools in the U.S. you'd bang your head against a concrete wall.
Not government propaganda
Good to see that this was not received well on Twitter. So many celebrities have lost my respect. I’ll never forget!
" The new Sacred Class " is a very apt description of this movement ,which is apparently in charge of EVERYTHING and can get Laws changed in their favour by claiming to be the most vulnerable and marginalised group of people in the world . How can Governments fall for this nonsense ? Do they not look at the evidence to the contrary ? Nobody has yet explained what rights " trans "people do NOT have !! Crazy .👎👎
That's what I keep asking too - what rights exactly do they not already have? Oh yes, the right to womens' single sex spaces, the right to compromise women's safety, the right to redefine what a woman is and erode those sex-based rights...
Quite ,and don't forget the right to batter ,rape and even murder women in or out of those spaces !
Yes, it's a crime if you're a man but if you have the magic-girly-unicorn-loving-pink n fluffy feeling inside then no matter what you do with bits of your anatomy, it's ok! At least that's the message received by jounalists looking the other way, the prison system, the legal system and many, many more virtue signalling f***tards.
I wouldn’t even record that tiny violin and play it. I went through multiple eye rolls last week, vowing to stop for fear of losing my sight.
This week, I’m growing thorns .. literally 😉
This madness never seems to end.
I think I sprained an eyeball tbh 🙄
Passing over the Terf Eye Drops ..
For eyeball pain,
From rolls and sprains,
Take Terfeyette
For Suffragette's!!
Don't be blinded by the insanity take Terfeyette and get back to the fight!
That is brillIant - have you seen Tracey Ullmans Angela Merkel eye rolling sketch?
No, I need to check that out sounds amazing. And thank you :)
here is the linke
https://youtu.be/p5WPVLljm1A
Love it 😂😂😂
Thank you :)
Imagine, if you will, a class of mentally disturbed people asking for their disturbance to be validated, not only to be validated but respected — you WILL respect us — remember that one? But validation and respect alone do not appease. Declarations of bravery and beauty, and recognition as avatars of a New Trans Age are current demands. In alarmingly few years, there has been the remarkable “transition” from mental disturbance to bodhisattva consciousness.
What does "validation" even mean? They hurl big words into the debate and you are expected to just nod. This is one of the reasons why this escalated.
"Validation" here means: Well, OK, we are supposing that someone else isn't just putting up an act. This is a mental health issue, so, yes I believe that most of these people aren't just putting up an act, save the "non binaries". That doesn't mean that they didn't talk themselves into the whole thing.
What they mean by "validation" is: There is actually people who were born in the wrong body and that they are among them. In other words: How they feel about themselves is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, but more importantly, the actual, the surpreme truth about human beings.
Validation = Attention ?
Certainly one aspect. Particularly with "non binaries". But it's fair to say that the lack of attention certainly is something that drives this socially induced explosion of Gender Dysphoria in teenage girls. A lack of attention by their parents and a society who thinks that with all the progress made for women over the past decades growing up as a girl is just an easy job. (Heck, even growing up as a boy isn't easy, and we have it far better than girls.)
I always felt the boys had it harder when I was a kid. But I think it's definitely the other way around now
It's hard in a different way. Some aspects are certainly harder than for girls. Like, who ever takes a 15 yo or 16 yo boy seriously, what with the akward voice and all. Not to belittle the sexist threats she gets, but Greta Thunberg probably would not have become the voice of the younger generation's climate movement had she been a boy at that age. But overall, it is quite a bit easier for us than for women.
Interesting comment, thanks. My four sons all found it hard to navigate ages 15-18.
That makes sense
I have little sympathy for he guy. Still: Prison, particularly in the US, unfortunately is there to break people. It shouldn't be. It does not resocialize people, it de-socializes them. He was broken just like anyone else in there. This shouldn't have happened. To no one. It is my firm conviction that even someone who raped a 14 year old girl should be safe from assault in prison. "Gender identity" does not play a role in any of this, though., and it must not.
Prison should reform those people that can be reformed, and put away those people for good who will always be a threat to people. Both can and should be done humanely, even in the case of sexual offenders.
That being said: Putting guys like him together with women would make it worse for everyone else involved, except him. To reform a dysfunctional and harmful prison system can not consist of making sure it puts even more people at risk and breaks them even harder. Which is exactly what the aim of this sob story is.
Might putting him in with women make it worse for everyone involved, INCLUDING him? If it presents him with more opportunities for re-offending, it might scupper any chances he might have had of becoming a better person.
That, too. In a more rational penitentiary system he may have the chance. In the US system, well, I don't think that's a realistic option. But any way you look at it, it is insane to even think about putting a man into a woman's prison.
That punishment is a warning to everyone else, a deterrent. I believe
I don't think so. If you listen to some of the men who have been caught with child porn, they are undeterred by anything. I kept asking myself why do they keep doing it when they know that state law enforcement is tracking them? They are compulsive, but that's only part of the explanation; they are also extremely entitled and feel they have the right to women's and children's bodies.
I believe they mean it as a deterrent. I don't personally think it works. I'm just adding in another reason for why they're doing it.
Apologies, I worded it oddly.
Yeah, a compulsion would be a good explanation for their behaviour.
Oh, yes, they mean it as a deterrent, but of course it doesn't work. I have very ambivalent feelings about prison; there are definitely some people who belong there, but there are lot of people who really could function outside with some help -- Bill Clinton did a lot to make sure they didn't get any -- and who are not a threat to women and children.
The vast majority of people in prison do not belong there. Violent offenders are relatively rare in there, and even many of those could be reformed in much better ways. But of course, you'd need a functional welfare system for that to happend and that's something rich people don't want to pay for. Even though it keeps them a lot safer, too.
I'm not sure I agree with you about the violent offenders. If a man is imprisoned at age 20 for getting into a bar fight and someone was killed accidentally, I totally agree. But the criminally insane as they are termed can never be freed. My husband did a rotation at the state hospital for the criminally insane and he thought he might be interested, but the other nurses told him to forget it, it was horrible and violent. The feds came in to supervise and it's supposed to be better. My sister toured the wing in Illinois (Joliet) where Richard Speck (mass murderer of nurses) was imprisoned, and it was pretty weird.
I don't think any society knows what to do with such men. We certainly don't pay attention to not creating them in the first place. I personally believe that people such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, George W Bush, etc, belong in prison because the rest of us need to be protected from them. But they will never be because we reward sociopathy.
All this said, Chris, I think I finally figured out your religion. You believe in progress, a notion lifted from the Bible (!) and capitalism. I threw progress out the window long ago with help from the likes of Stephen Jay Gould; progress would be an extremely fit subject for a group of skeptics, much better than discussing homeopathy or Bigfoot!
I know what you mean. That's annoying to hear about Bill 🙄
Hi, Penny, I haven't yet read the Covert Action Magazine piece about Bill and his ties to the CIA; they also have one about reopening the Vince Foster murder case. Bill and Hillary are the lowest of the low, two utterly sociopathic people, and I did manage to read most of the assassination story about Ron Brown, Commerce Secretary during Clinton's administration who told Clinton he was going to have to talk because he was being subpoenaed by so many federal agencies. Never tell a Clinton you're going to have to talk!
During Clinton's administration, he removed banking regulation; denied education, housing, and food programs to ex-prisoners; destroyed welfare; destroyed Yugoslavia; and countless other misdeeds. They are both so foul it's hard to believe they are even human beings.
It isn't. If harsh punishment were a deterrent, the USA wouldn't have the highest crime rate of any developped nation. No other developped country has as harsh, as brutal and as backward a prison system and a criminal justice system. The only thing that deters people from comitting crimes is a high likelihood of getting caught and convicted.
Oh I know, I'm a psychologist, part of my degree was forensic psychology. I was just saying that is part of what they're intending. Yeah the three strikes system is brutal for example. If they're still doing that.
The 4W coverage on this: https://4w.pub/trans-child-rapist-complains-about-difficult-jail-sentence/
Jesus, when you can only read the truth on something so serious in a journal for cancelled women the world needs to have a serious word with itself.
I wanted to be sure that it was true that NPR omitted the tiny detail of this person's crime of raping a child. I trust journalists like Gluck on 4W from what I have seen so far. This is a new low for NPR (National Public Radio) especially. In case you don't live in the US and aren't familiar, NPR is partly government funded. It is considered to be center-left and known for solid, thoughtful and rigorous journalism. It is impossible for me to believe the reporter would not have known he was painting such a sympathetic portrait of a child rapist. Friendly clarification Trev--although the founder MK Fain started the project of 4W after she was fired for her job for defending women's sex-based rights, it's not a journal "for cancelled women." 4W is by and for women about issues that affect us (and good info for men too!). Their work is well worth following and supporting.
Ahhh, thanks for the clarification, Elizabeth, I'll give it a read then.
I was vaguely aware of NPR's reputation so this does surprise me. The piece would have presumably been vetted by an editor so you do have to wonder why the elephant in the room didn't attract even a passing mention. A quiet change in policy thanks to TRAs slipping brain-change pills into the coffeemaker, perhaps? It will be interesting to see if NPR offers any further clarification on this. Maybe we should all go and ask this journalist some difficult questions on Twitter.
NPR for Christ's sake. I guess this is to provide cover for Biden’s next executive order allowing trans-/non-binary-/ and female identifying male inmates in Federal prison to self-ID their way into women's correctional facility-spaces.
Yep. There's a bunch of stuff at Women's Liberation about that.
The trouble is, this scenario isn’t unusual. Sexual predator in prison suddenly decides he’s a woman, shud enjoy extra privileges and b in a women’s prison [= opportunity to cross the threshold to assault/ rape more (trapped) women) ‘cos he’s a victim…boo hoo…Welcome to the new dog collar/swim coach’s whistle that gets the paedo a free pass… 😱😱😱😡😤😠
NPR's criminal background checks must be a doddle. I'll bet Peter Sutcliffe could intern for them.
I'll bet they did no background check. Our "reporters" in the U.S. ask no questions even regarding noncontroversial issues, they don't research information before interviewing someone, they're incredibly lazy. And half of them are minimally literate.
Yes, and it's now all about feelings over facts. 'Lift up' someone's 'personal truth', a 'narrative'. Thinking that a journalist's chief job is to seek to uncover the objective facts behind a potential news story and dispassionately relay them so as to provide information to better inform everyone is so last century. Nah, just (at most) shove mic at random person, ask how they feel, apply RightThink filter and vocab, job done.
Democracies absolutely depend on sources of information doing their jobs. We're f*cked.
I’ve noticed over the years that interviews of prisoners and former prisoners who are reform advocates often omit or minimize their crimes. At least, they do this when the crimes are violent. Fraudsters and some drug dealer types are frank about their histories. This is egregious, though.
I remember when National Public Radio (NPR) was a respected news institution. If local NPR radio stations still receive significant funding from listener donations, they better expect to kiss that $$ goodbye.