For Pride Month I’m fasting mainstream media and praying that pride leaders will stop allowing men to rape the most vulnerable of women inside the prison system.

WoLF (Women’s Liberation Front) in America is reporting that women’s prisons in California are at crisis point. In one example, an alleged rape of a woman by a trans-identified male took place in a prison yard port-a-loo while another male prisoner stood guard.

This event comes while the State of California is attempting to dismiss a civil rights case that WoLF has brought opposing the presence of male prisoners in female jails.

According to WoLF, a law brought in by progressive Governor Gavin Newsom called ‘SB132’ allows the entry of males into female prisons based on self-declared ‘gender identity’. 300 men have applied to enter the women’s prisons from the male prison estate. One third of these prisoners are sex offenders.

This is not entirely unpredictable behaviour from males, particularly criminal males, and specifically a group of males who have a higher incidence of sex offending. This sounds like a controversial statement, but it is quite factual that self-identifying ‘trans’ male prisoners have more sex offending convictions than women prisoners and the general male prison population.

Compared to the 30 per cent statistic cited by WoLF of sex offenders in the male trans prison population, a report by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation indicates that in 2019 around 13.4 per cent of male prisoners were sex offenders.

In July last year, a case came before the High Court in the UK on behalf of a prisoner named as FDJ that demonstrated a similar statistical trend. The legal team of FDJ argued that the presence of males in female prisons posed a safety risk to women. Ultimately FDJ lost the case, but those of us watching felt the evidence presented was startling.

The data cited to the court indicated that of the 163 transgender identified male prisoners in the UK in 2019, 81 were sex offenders – that’s 50 per cent. In the same document, we see that less than 20 per cent of the male prison estate are convicted sex offenders and in the female prison population that goes down to 5 per cent. The inclusion of these trans-identified male prisoners into the female prison population in the UK, which now stands at 3,200, would mean that the percentage of sex offenders in female prisons would rise from 5 per cent to 8 per cent overnight.

This statistic from the FDJ case can only mean two things, and neither of them are consistent with the gender identity ideology worldview. The obvious conclusion is that some male sex offenders are possibly self-identifying as ‘trans’ to access the female prison estate. The only other conclusion is that trans-identified males have a higher rate of sex offending than other males, a claim unable to be made from a prison population data set.

This data from the FDJ case was brought up in a recent employment tribunal case in the UK where a black Lesbian woman is suing an LGBTQ+ organisation for discrimination. The case is again going over the conflict of rights where women, and particularly lesbians, are citing incidents where trans rights claims are being promoted by LGBTQ+ organisations above women.

Curiously a lawyer from Garden Court Chambers, Michelle Brewer, argued that the figures in the FDJ case were skewed by the ability of prisoners to self-identify as trans. This is interesting because Brewer has previously provided legal support to the Stonewall campaign to bring self ID permanently in British law; a move that we know will allow potential predators to identify as trans to access vulnerable women. Clearly uncomfortable with the line of questioning, Brewer then claimed that highlighting the sex offending rate of trans prisoners was a ‘very harmful narrative’. This obvious conflict at the core of gender identity ideology is strongly guarded by its believers who issue accusations of ‘transphobia’ towards those who disagree. 

The idea that men can become women by simply identifying as such is a belief key to the legal validation of ‘self ID’. The law is not based on the concept that identifying legally as a female will transform a man into a woman, it is instead based on a philosophical belief that the law is merely recognising a female soul. It argues that the trans person should only need to declare this soul by a statutory declaration, and to question this soul truth is traumatising to the trans person’s ‘identity’.

This idea that no man would identify as ‘trans’ to access vulnerable women or as a fetish, is a fantasy that only the extremely privileged or stupid can afford to believe. The real-world cost for the most vulnerable women and children in society is extremely high, almost always involving rape and violence.

Many of us hoped that the disproportionately high number of sex offenders among trans-identifying male prisoners in the FDJ case would break a spell that the LGBTQ+ supporters seemed to be under. We didn’t want to raise the issue to hurt people, but to highlight the safeguarding risk of the rush to eliminate sex categories in law.

This is why Katherine Deves publicised the startling statistic in a tweet earlier this year. The tweet said, ‘Half of all males with trans identities are sex offenders, compared with less than 20 per cent for the rest of male estate. That should tell you something.’

Deves was referencing the case of FDJ v. Secretary of State for Justice in an attempt to highlight that self ID is a safeguarding risk for women, but mainstream media outlets deliberately or ignorantly misrepresented this tweet.

I made a complaint about the inaccurate framing of the tweet to the SBS when they placed a picture of the tweet with the words ‘half of all males with trans identities are sex offenders’ highlighted. They then took the tweet off the screen and claimed that the highlighted section was the entirety of Deves claim. The ABC made the same claim. The difference is that when I complained to the SBS, they admitted that the story had breached their Code of Practice. When someone complained to the ABC, the ABC did not back down.

The ABC has consistently supported the pile-on against Deves. If what Deves says is true, it would break the spell of the gender identity religion that is at the core of the LGBTQ+ agenda that the ABC has committed itself to. The ABC has recently won acclaim from pro-LGBTQ+ groups in the form of awards issued by organisations that focus on the promotion of gender identity ideology in Australian workplaces and media through the Australian Workplace Equality Index. 

Let’s remember that if a disproportionate amount of trans-identified prisoners are in fact sex offenders, this ideology at the core of the LGBTQ+ comes into question, not because ‘trans people are sex offenders’, but because males who transition retain male pattern violence, and that some males may have taken on a trans identity to access vulnerable females and children.

Gender is not a magic soul, ‘trans’ is not a priesthood immune from sin, and the violence we see in males is largely a result of their biology, not their identity. This is all heresy to pro-LGBTQ+ organisations and the myriad of bullies who harass anyone who dares to contradict the saintly rhetoric.

There are stark differences between males and females in criminal patterns, this is where we get the expression ‘male pattern violence’. There is no serious debate about the existence of male pattern violence from anyone who is not a complete idiot. Currently, 93 per cent of prisoners in Australia are male. Only a small section of males are sex offenders, but almost all sex offenders are male. Because this trend is cross-cultural, it is reasonably assumed that male pattern violence is predominately biologically based.

The ability of women to call on the State to protect them from males is the cornerstone of women’s rights. These rights and protections didn’t grow spontaneously, they were hard fought for and won.

I don’t think the suffragettes would have been surprised to see the emergence of a new priesthood that would pretend it didn’t see the sex-based vulnerability of female bodies. I don’t think they would be surprised that girls were being taught that powerful masculine archetypes can only be theirs with the alteration of their bodies including the removal of their breasts and fertility. I don’t think the suffragettes would be shocked to see a world where women were no longer able to use the word ‘woman’ to talk about menstruation or childbirth or the word ‘male’ to talk about the type of violence that they are at greatest risk from.

Money that goes toward pro-LGBTQ+ organisations with a focus on gender identity ideology is at risk of being used to infringe upon the rights of women – including from conservative governments such as the New South Wales Liberal-led government, who have donated millions already. So, before you blame the ‘crazy left’ for the dismantling of women’s rights, I urge you to stop and follow the money.

Some of these ‘progressive’ initiatives include the promotion and practice of removing female-only toilets in the workplace. Female-only toilets were at the forefront of women’s rights claims with the fight for the removal of the ‘urinal leash’ not much more than 100 years ago.

So, for Pride Month I am coming out as a gender identity atheist and a pride denier. I’ll continue to be called transphobic, homophobic, and misandrist for my heresy, but I’d rather be a pride heretic than a rape apologist.

Edie Wyatt has a BA Hons from the Institute of Cultural Policy Studies and writes on culture, politics and feminism. She tweets at @MsEdieWyatt and blogs at ediewyatt.com

Get 10 issues for just $10

Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for the next 10 magazine issues, plus full online access, for just $10.

SUBSCRIBE 10 issues for $10 REGISTER 3 articles a month

Already a subscriber? Log in