Over the past few years communities, and even entire states, have implemented legal protections for individuals who self-identify as “Transgender”. This umbrella term includes a variety of individuals who practice stereotypical behaviors, interests or presentation (clothes, hairstyling, accessorizing, etc.) of the biological sex opposite that of the individual’s birth.(1) The most prevalent of these are heterosexual males practicing a sexual fetish – Transvestism (crossdressing) or Autogynephilia.(2) These legal protections most frequently provide the transgender individual (heterosexual males) with unlimited access to sex-segregated facilities of the opposite sex (females – women and girls). This includes access to bathrooms, dressing rooms, locker rooms, women’s shelters, hospital wards, etc.
The argument in support of this is always that these males “feel like” women. The reality is they are not women or girls. They are men and boys.
So, women and girls are expected to simply trust men. Trust that “feeling like” a woman negates any potential for male violence. Trusting men hasn’t worked well for us over the past several centuries. And it isn’t something we should do this time, either.
Beyond “feeling like” a woman, the protection which transgender activists are quick to offer up is that these men are physically incapable of rape. That isn’t true.
Almost a third, 29% of male-born transgender, do not make any medical (hormonal) or surgical changes to their bodies.(9) These men are fully functioning males, driven by testosterone. There is nothing at all which reduces their ability, nor diminishes their desire, to have erect-penis sexual activity with women. Again, almost 1/3 of male-born transgender are testosterone loaded, penis and testicles equipped, MEN.
Of the remaining male-born transgender who do elect to have medical/surgical services, 80% of those do not have any sex reassignment surgery.(9) This represents 57% of the total male-born transgender population. They are still a physically intact male – with both testicles and penis. They are considered chemically castrated by self-administered synthetic hormone treatments – testosterone reducers and female hormones. Keep in mind that there is no state- or medical-mandated monitoring in place to ensure prescribed testosterone blockers or synthetic hormones are being taken.
Of those who do opt for some sexual surgery, which is only 14% of the total male-born population, the majority elect to have an orchidectomy, surgical removal of the testes.(9) They are surgically castrated. No testicles – they still have a penis.
25% of castrated males are fully capable of achieving and maintaining an erection after castration with no medical, no pharmaceutical, and no mechanical assistance.(3) When the male is sexually aroused, he will have an erection. This is regardless of whether the castration is chemical or surgical. Whether the castration was due to illness, accident or an elective procedure for cosmetic purposes.
An additional 65 – 70% of castrated males are capable of achieving and sustaining an erection with the use of phosphodiesterase (PDE-5) inhibitors.(4) These are common erectile dysfunction medications: Viagra, Cialis, Levitra. The same medications which are prescribed, and often provided for free, by Planned Parenthood to the transgender community.(5)
In total, 90 – 95% of castrated males are fully capable of sustaining an erection for sexual intercourse.
Men who have been chemically castrated may still produce sperm. Production often decreases, but live sperm is usually still present in semen.(6) Sperm which will still impregnate a female.
Surgically castrated men with erections are also fully capable of both having an orgasm and ejaculating. Seminal fluid is still produced by the prostate gland. The ejaculatory duct is still intact and still feeds from the prostate into the urethra of the penis. The penis still ejaculates upon orgasm. A thinner, more watery ejaculation, there’s no spermatozoa, but its still bodily fluid.
Its still life-threatening.
Multiple surveys and studies have been conducted on the high prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases among the transgender population. The San Francisco AIDS Foundation determined the Transgender Community has the highest overall HIV diagnosis rate of any group in the state of California. Almost 50% higher than the Men-having-sex-with-Men (MSM) group. SFAF estimates the prevalence rate of HIV in the male-born transgender community to be 35 – 48%.(7) A nation-wide systemic review of AIDs and HIV prevalence in 29 transgender community locations across USA indicates an infection rate as high as 68%.(8). The transgender population is 400% more likely to be HIV+ than the general population. (9)
Roughly, one third to two thirds of the male born transgender population is infected with HIV.
To summarize, 93-97% of ALL male-born transgender, including those who have been “castrated” through surgery and/or hormones still have a penis and are:
Fully capable of penetrative sexual intercourse – vaginally, orally, anally.
Fully capable of ejaculating HIV+ seminal fluid.
Fully capable of having sex with women.
Or, raping them.
(1) http://www.scottishtrans.org/guidance/transgender-umbrella/ NOTE: persons who are Intersexed or have Disorders of Sex Development are NOT transgender (see http://www.isna.org/faq/transgender)
(4) http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/540086_1 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1397768/
22 thoughts on “Castrate Rape”
Well, that’s unfortunate. While this does not leave me feeling Transphobic, any more phobic than I am of men in general, it surely does paint a picture of a club nobody in their right mind would want to join. “Born that way” argues from a POV that all this craziness and poor lifestyle choices are somehow inevitable. I’m not too interested in hearing that all they need to be healthy and happy is invade women’s spaces. I mean, maybe we don’t want to hang out nekkid with male prostitutes and drug addicts with severe mood and personality disorders?
Not to say all trans are such, but they don’t come with signs.
Reblogged this on Rethinking "Gender Identity".
Ive never thought of the HIV aspect before.
The HIV aspect is very worrying. No only because of the demands for sex, but the reluctance to be up front about theses issues with sexual partners. No one has the ‘right’ to infect others with a deadly disease. I believe the HIV infected need access to medical care, but also counseling to stop the spread of AIDS. The healthcare cant be frivaled away on boob jobs and face surgery, tummy tucks /cosmetic surgery, leg waxing etc after the shock of artificial estrogen, etc. Women that are flat chested with low self-esteem are not offered automatic boob-jobs, just counseling. I am pretty sure, mastectomies after breast cancer does not offer automatic boob jobs either and they often refer out to charities to cover those costs. Breast implants are not permanent and often break down after 3-5 years. Health conditions like AIDS & cancer can be complicated by additional health problems from breast implants breaking down.
Some insurance policies are required to cover reconstructive surgery after mastectomy, although I don’t believe there are national standards in place, it varies by state (in the U.S., I don’t know how such matters are handled in countries with universal health care)
Actually, druidwinter, most states do require post-mastectomy breast reconstruction surgery to be at least offered if medically possible or appropriate (meaning, it’s medically safe and possible to do the surgery). I do know that Texas requires that all health insurance sold in the state must cover reconstruction post-mastectomy, and I believe that’s a federal law. Texas Medicaid will also cover reconstruction, including surgery to the remaining breast in order to make both sides equal. Men can also get breast cancer or chest injuries that require reconstruction, and those surgeries are also covered in Texas under Medicaid. And sometimes, that reconstruction can be done using the woman’s own tissue instead of using implants.
You write that transgender women with penises are capable of rape, which I won’t dispute. However, you present “capable of” as “liable and likely to”. Such a gross and false generalization could be applied to any situation: “A person has hands and is capable of strangling someone. Therefore we should prevent people from interacting because one could strangle another.”
You’ve judged transgender people to be guilty until proven innocent. I’d love for you to point me to a study that shows that transgender people are predisposed to rape and sex crimes as your post suggests.
I won’t deny that anyone (male or female) could crossdress, enter a facility intended for the opposite gender, and commit a crime, but I would be hard pressed to believe that it is likely to happen as a result of a law being passed. No, someone bent on committing such a crime would do it whether a law is present or absent.
I would also like to point out that your representation of being transgender as ‘these males “feel like” women’ is over-simplified and inaccurate. Perhaps that description might apply to some who fall under the transgender term, but it is not representative of all.
Transgender is an umbrella term–something you’ve acknowledged in your post–meaning that the term applies to a wide group of people. Muslims encompass a wide variety of people as well. Would it be fair to label all Muslims as terrorists because only a small part of that group are? Or would it be fair to label all women as transphobic based on the content of your site? You lay the sins of a few upon the rest whose only crime is being categorized under the same broad term as the sinners.
Are there people who identify as transgender who will commit sex crimes? Yes, just as there are people who don’t identify as such who will commit sex crimes. But does a transgender identity necessarily mean that a person will commit a sex crime? No way.
As transgender ‘women’ are actually biologically male, this predisposes them to rape and sex crimes, as with all males. That is a fact. Men rape. Whilst not all men rape, there is a risk.
I don’t think the author is suggesting that all trans will rape. She is suggesting that, because they are biologically male (whatever they actually consider themselves to be) they are capable of it. They therefore present a risk to women in women-only spaces, such as shelters. From your argument, we may as well do away with segregated spaces because not all men (who do not ID as trans) will rape. That there is a risk of rape is enough to justify keeping biological males out of female-only spaces. To insist that women should admit people with male genitalia into their spaces is an example of gross insensitivity, male entitlement and misogyny. And to label this as transphobia is to dismiss the very real need for women to feel safe away from biological men, however they choose to present themselves.
“As transgender ‘women’ are actually biologically male, this predisposes them to rape and sex crimes, as with all males.”
So not at all: Since males are no more predisposed to rape than women are predisposed to diddle children.
“They therefore present a risk to women in women-only spaces”
by that definition you should also quick out lesbians since they can also rape women & a “predisposed to want to have sex with women.”
Faulty logic is faulty.
Facts are facts. The overwhelming majority of rapes and sexual assaults are committed by men against women and girls. One in six women in America have been raped. Raped by a man. This is a proven risk for women, there is no logic to debate.
What concerns me most about this creeping (and creepy) creep towards transgender equality is the potential it would provide for an easy slip into behaviours which could put women and children at risk. Would some people do this. I think “yes”. Why do I think this? I think this because I may well have been one of those people. I can look back now and see what I was doing. I could have got dressed up as a woman and used shared facilities. I could then have taken the turn to use that “right” to abuse women in some way. Would I have done this? I don’t know, but what I do know is that I was a serious sex addict and I was escalating. Would I have stuck to MSM activity? I don’t think so, cos I was quite happy to have sex with my wife (still am) and I would have described myself as fully bisexual. The whole HIV thing caused me so much concern that I finally got a test. I’m grateful to be negative. I got into a deep debate with a friend who wanted me to sign this petition:
I said no and pointed them at your page. She told me that all transgender people were lovely and fluffy and she has used shared facilities without issue…. I really cant quite bring myself to tell her why I think the opposite.
One of my concerns is how transpeople claiming extra super special oppressed and protected status may make it very difficult for girls and women to get abusive bastards removed from women’s facilities:
“She was staring at me while stroking her dick.” “How dare you? That’s transphobic to accuse me of that!” What facilities/businesses are going to risk a discrimination lawsuit from a self-described transwoman (who may be faking transidentity for access to victims)?
I truly fear that it will take no less than a biological male *raping* someone to get that person permanently removed from that facility. As it stands, transwomen who rape women in women’s prisons aren’t being placed back in men’s prisons.
Reblogged this on nereidafilomena and commented:
Excellent rebuttal to trans bullshit.
Great article. Thank you for writing it.
Chemically “castrated” and no access to Viagra: having to move him OUT of the women’s prison. Too much sex going on! I am so surprised to learn this http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/pre-op-transsexual-killer-moved-out-2929284
Somehow I have trouble seeing sex with the convicted torture murderer dude who’s been housed with women in prison as being consensual.
Serial killers get love letters and marriage proposals in prison. Richard Ramirez married one of the women who was obsessed with him. It’s theoretically possible that the UK killer had consensual intercourse, but I also wouldn’t put it past any prison system to downplay rape of inmates.
They often write “sex scandal” or such, when the scandal ist actually about rape.
I can confirm what you have written. Having lost both testicles to cancer, I’ve had to face the possibility of not having sex again. My fears were unfounded. I’m quite able to perform sexually. I’m still a man despite having a ball-less empty sack.
This is astonishing and creepy information. Nonetheless very good to have. When you first posted this in 2013 I had no clue about any of the transgender stuff that I’ve learned over the past like nine months. Just utterly gobsmacked. And yeah, we all think that if a man doesn’t have his testicles that’s it. No erections. Which of course makes no sense since Viagra doesn’t work via testosterone or any hormones like it. It works on nitrous oxide which is involved in blood vessel dilation control, everywhere in the body not just the penis.
Pingback: Post-op Trouble | The Politics of Gender