GC: What is wrong with trans people working in sexual violence prevention?

submitted by GenderbenderShe/her/hers from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]worried19 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I'm struggling to see anything wrong with it. Sexual violence happens to many different populations. Ruggles is quite obviously a natal female, so there should be no concern about sinister motivations of any type. I don't see how Ruggles being transgender impacts on the ability to do the job. I would assume Ruggles may also be a survivor, since trans natal females are at high risk themselves. Even if not, I'm sure Ruggles has empathy for victims. It would be one thing if Ruggles was championing BDSM or something while promoting this job, but I didn't see any mention of that in the article.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Ruggles is quite obviously a natal female, so there should be no concern about sinister motivations of any type.

I don't think him being a natal female means we should scrutinize him less. For instance, if someone has a history of abusing children they should not work in public schools, regardless if they are male or female. If he had sinister motivations, that wouldn't change if he was in a different demographic. We need to assess people's behaviors, not demographics.

[–]worried19 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Yes, of course no one should be excluded from scrutiny or safeguarding. But natal females are almost certainly not going to get involved in sexual assault prevention for fetishistic reasons. The potential for concern would be different with a biological male.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

natal females are almost certainly not going to get involved in sexual assault prevention for fetishistic reasons.

I don't think this is necessarily the case, particularly in the current era. At any rate, to make such an assumption across the board is definitely against safeguarding.

A lot of what was/is believed to be "known" about female sexuality is based on very limited research into specific, narrow generations and populations - and thus it might not apply to newer generations and all populations.

For example, American women of older generations like mine (Boomer) did not grow up watching porn videos, thinking penis-in-anus sex was normal/common heterosexual practice, or believing that it's customary or desirable for women to remove their pubic hair. But many younger people today seem to take take it for granted that "everyone" watches internet video porn, that all/most men want to put their dicks in women's asses - indeed, that many men prefer this over PIV - and that women "naturally" would want to remove all their pubes and that het men would find "bushes" or natural pubic hair on women to be unusual, off-putting, unattractive and even "gross."

Also, fetishism is not the only inappropriate, unseemly reason some women and men might be interested in this line of work. Some women might be groomers, procurers, partners of sex abusers or sex abusers themselves. Some might have sadistic or voyeuristic streaks, weird religious beliefs, a savior complex. Some might be drama junkies, ghouls who find other people's suffering exciting and so on. Lots of traumatized, damaged people go into the "helping professions" in hopes of working out their own issues, finding connection with others who share their problems, and/or because they want to "make lemonade out of lemons" and believe that having suffered abuse endows them with special abilities and a moral duty to prevent others from doing the same.

Yes, it's a documented truth that most sexual violence is committed by men. We know a fair bit about paraphilias in men because harmful sexual proclivities in males are often so pronounced that they are bleeding obvious, and because so many males just can't keep their sex fantasies to themselves - they have to express them in novels, art, cartoons, movies, TV, pornography, private online forums and now all over public social media platforms as well as in public and at work (hence the "take your whole self to work" movement). Moreover, male sex criminals and males with sex problems have been prime sources of research for sexologists, most of whom are male too.

Partly because the field of sexology, as well as all the arts and fields like porn and culture in general are dominated by men, I think a lot of commonly-held ideas about women's sexuality that are widely believed to be "true" are actually assumptions heavily informed and shaped by sexist stereotypes, aka gender.

[–]worried19 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I definitely don't disagree that women can be perverted to a terrible extent as well. And you should never assume that a woman is "safe" merely because she's a woman. But at the same time, there's a reason that many moms tell their kids that they should look for a woman to help them if they ever get lost. I think the chances of Ruggles or any other natal female getting into this line of work to specifically prey on others is very low. Not non-existent, but low.

[–]GenderbenderShe/her/hers[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

How do you know that? People assigned female at birth (cis or trans) are certainly capable of having fetishes.

[–]worried19 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Paraphilias are much more common in males, for whatever reason. Women can have fetishes and of course they can be sex offenders, but it's less likely.

I just pointed that out because people would be more likely to suspect a male person of having sinister reasons for getting involved in the problem of sexual assault. Of course not all of them, but the chances of a natal female getting involved in that line of work for evil intentions is much less likely overall.