The fraud of pantypopo, and/or ‘she may not have intended harm, but it’s a problem that so many forwarded this rubbish’

On our Facebook page recently, a commenter quoted from a trans-critical blog of a few years’ age, OUT OF MY PANTIES, NOW!!! by blogger pantypopo, which purports to give startling statistics about trans males’ sexual offending and criminality.

Here are the reasons for STC not endorsing this blog (there may be other potential reasons as we have not read it all):

1.   The blogger appears to invent her figures, or to derive them from combining figures from inappropriate sources – often works whose meaning she has not taken the time to understand.

2.   She appears not to care about the effect of her actions on the reputation of the gender abolitionist cause.

3.   Her actions help stigmatise a population sector which already includes some very vulnerable elements. While trans* males are as likely to offend sexually as other male-born people, trans* males in some social sectors – especially youth and racialised – can be especially victimised. Female-born trans* people are adversely affected by a crude conflation of ‘transgender’ and ‘sex offender’ which is based on a reading (correct or not) of male statistics. Girls and women tend to be propelled into transgenderism by the mistreatment of our sex (hoping to be treated better as males), and so we cannot afford this kind of crudeness which reduces transgenderism to sex offending.

In this 2013 (and still frequently circulated) article, ‘When is 90% not Substantially ALL?’, she begins:

88% of the transgender population, those people who are protected by gender identity and gender expression laws, are, as reported by their own advocacy organizations, males with a psychosexual disorder. (1)

Scrolling down to see what reference number 1 is to check who provided the 88% figure, we find:
Now, one does not normally work out percentages by combining the figures given by two different organisations, who presumably used different survey or calculation methods. That in itself would normally be enough to consider a result worthless.

But the next question – where the 88% comes from – is quite a puzzle. I noticed that if I subtracted the lower transsexual population figure from the lower total transgender population figure – .25% from 2% – I reached 1.75% as the proportion of the US population which is non-transsexual but transgender. That is 87.5% of 2%.

Perhaps that explains the 88%, but this only perplexes one more – why would those lower figures be the ones to select?

And the problems don’t end there. How does any of the above mean that the (very vaguely) referenced organisations believe that USA non-transsexual trans people are “males with a psychosexual disorder”? This was the first we’ve heard of a gender breakdown in these statistics.

After this 88% claim, pantypopo continues:

Many men with psychosexual disorders practice their fetish in the privacy of their own homes. But as many as 13,946,348 of them in the US, at the time of this writing, will be free to practice their fetish in public, in front of your children, in women’s locker rooms, in the girls bathroom at school. (2) This will be enabled by current and pending transgender legislation throughout the US. (3)


Again, I feel I am up shit creek without a paddle. I found a 2013 account of the USA population – 316.5 million – and calculated 1.75% of that, assuming that pantypopo was concerned about the non-transsexual (totally all male) transgender section of the population. But I reached approximately 5.54 million.

Could I work backwards? Dividing 13,946,348 by 316,500,000, I reached 4.4% of the US population. No clue as to where that was from. Could she mean that she feared the legislation then planned would enable a larger proportion of male fetishists or offenders to do this in females’ facilities (i.e. she was no longer referring to transgender or cross-dressing males)? Given how broad some pro-trans legislation is, that seemed plausible. But the references at the end were of little help:Just for the hell of it, I searched for that 13,946,348 figure at Gender Identity Watch, and came up empty-handed save for a reference to this same piece by pantypopo.

Moving on! (Yes, there’s more.) Our blogger continues:

Transgender fetish is the largest sexual disorder reported in convicted sex offenders.(4) Almost 100% of convicted sex offenders have a documented history of transvestism, crossdressing, free-dressing, Autogynephilia, transsexualism – in other words: TRANSGENDER.

60% of convicted sex offenders have transgender fetish as their primary paraphillia (a parapillia [sic] is a psychological sex disorder). Of the remaining fetishists, such as pedophiles, rapists, etc., 60% of those sex offenders have transgender fetish as their secondary parapillia [sic], in addition to their primary disorder. Finally, 40% of convicted sex offenders have transgender fetish as their tertiary (3rd) fetish among multiple disorders.

This reference takes us to:
What we find here is not, as promised, a breakdown of the proportion of convicted sex offenders who have some transgender-related paraphilia. We have, instead, a study, published in 1988, solely of paraphiliacs who reported their own acts of paraphilia but are not all stated as having been convicted of such acts. While this study is unclear on that, it is certain that this is no research on how many convicted sex offenders have a trans or cross-dressing paraphilia.  Therefore there is no claim in the article similar to pantypopo’s that “Almost 100% of convicted sex offenders have a documented history of transvestism, crossdressing, free-dressing, Autogynephilia, transsexualism”.

Is she, perhaps, correct that “60% of convicted sex offenders have transgender fetish as their primary paraphilia”? Not according to this source, at least. The authors distinguish between transsexualism and transvestitism. They stress that they do not consider the former to be definitely a paraphilia, and have partly included it within this study in order to shed light on whether it should be classified that way in future, and to explore other correlations:

pantypopo 5 non-paraphilia.PNG
Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law, Vol. 16, No.2, 1988. P. 156. (Or p. 4 of linked pdf of this study)

Their tables indicate that some participants demonstrated both transsexualism and transvestic behaviour.

Now, the 60% – where was this from? The closest I could find was this table:

pantypopo 4 paraphilia occurrence.PNG
ibid, pdf p.8

But as can clearly be seen, this table does not display primary paraphilias, but denotes what percentage of each category of paraphiliac had specifically one paraphilia, how many had two, how many had three, etc. Therefore, the ‘Transsexualism’ line tells us that 51.7% of transsexuals had no other paraphilia, 31% had another, 13.8% had two others, and 3.4% had three others.

It is true that if one adds the ‘transsexualism only’ and ‘transvestitism only’ figures then one reaches 58.2% (yes, nearish to 60%). But this says neither that 60% of sex offenders have a trans-related fetish, nor that 60% of paraphiliacs do. What it does is specify the percentage of study participants who are transsexual or ‘transvestitic’ (according to this now unfashionable designation) and have no other paraphilias. Pantypopo might do well to consider the meaning of that.

As far as the claim that “Of the remaining fetishists, such as pedophiles, rapists, etc., 60% of those sex offenders have transgender fetish as their secondary parapillia [sic], in addition to their primary disorder” goes, my best guess is that pantypopo assumed the second column to mean not “has more than one paraphilia”, but “has it as secondary paraphilia”. And duly added the Transsexualism and Transvestitism figures in that column (31.0% and 29%) in order to total 60%.

Frankly, I feel this pantypopo is a menace when allowed near figures, as she doesn’t seem to have allowed her lack of interest/ concern in what exactly the figures represent to have daunted her undoubted enthusiasm for combining them in a near-random fashion.

Her following claim, “40% of convicted sex offenders have transgender fetish as their tertiary (3rd) fetish among multiple disorders”, is apparently reached via the same method.

I believe this gives us the interesting feat of an article on the correlations between sex offending and transgenderism comprising claims which are – every single one of them – wrong.

Since responsible commentary on this research from pantpopo is unlikely, I will add here that:

  • It shows that 52% of transsexual subjects had no paraphilias (transsexuals mainly being included in the study for interest’s sake, as the authors warned).
  • 24% of transsexual participants had another studied condition which the authors specified was not a paraphilia, but was also included for interest’s sake: “ego-dystonic homosexuality”. (This is another outdated category designating being homosexual but not having accepted that.) What this adds up to meaning is that of the studied transsexuals, 52% had no paraphilia and a further 24% mostly had trouble accepting their homosexuality. That’s right. So much for the grand, lurid claims by pantypopo of a huge trans-paraphilia correlation.

    64.5% of ‘transvestic’ participants fitted into three or more categories, i.e. definitely engaged in behaviours beyond fetishistic cross-dressing and homosexuality.

  • This is, as we said before, a 1988 study. Since transgenderism is very much socially created, the two studied constructs here of ‘transsexualism’ and ‘transvestism’ (obviously, a male-centred practice) do not perfectly align with modern transgender identities. Individuals who have had SRS are more likely these days to identify as ‘transgender’ rather than ‘transsexual’, and individuals without SRS are less likely to “cross-dress” in private while identifying themselves as men in public.

    So regardless of pantypopo’s irreverence towards the practice of reading, the study’s conclusions should still not have been applied too incautiously towards currently trans-identifying male individuals.

Pantypopo then concludes, on the basis of these claims, that “Transgender sex disorders are the leading indicator of criminal sexual behaviour”. The nett effect of her false claims has been to portray trans people (not even trans males more narrowly) as the most likely sex offenders. 

Pantypopo’s article then moves to what appears to be links to media reports of trans criminal offences. While one would hope that she would find this less difficult, I think we can agree that anything provided by her is best if double- or triple-checked. And, hopefully, used as a lesson in not assuming that anything with a ‘%’ sign next to it is a valid contribution to one’s cause.



3 thoughts on “The fraud of pantypopo, and/or ‘she may not have intended harm, but it’s a problem that so many forwarded this rubbish’”

  1. Reblogged this on fmnst and commented:
    I spent several hours recently looking at her figures and came to the same conclusion as well, that sloppy conclusions and figures had been drawn.
    As STP writes, this is not credible information. We must all be careful to share factual information as best we can. Let the facts lead us wherever they will, rather than trying to simply find facts that seem to support one’s conclusions so far. We all need to read from the widest range of sources for general news or for any particular topic, because all news sources have their editorial biases. Even the New York Times and Washington Post, or whatever source we might consider the most reliable. We must consider the credibility of their sources, discard what does not seem credible, then sort through the evidence, and using our best critical thinking skills, draw our own conclusions, and think for ourselves. It’s important to make decisions based on the information at hand so far, not just waffle about. But then continue to be open to new information and ideas as they come along, and be willing to change our minds if the information and reasoning are sound and point us in a different direction.


  2. Please forgive the long comment; I think this information may be useful.

    Autogynephilia is a paraphilia. Paraphilias tend to co-occur in men (Krueger & Kaplan 2001).

    It seems that the prevalence of men feeling sexual arousal in response to mimicry of “femininity” may actually be in the region of 90%, at least in the USA and some other developed countries.

    In a 2011 paper, Lawrence describes the prevalence of male transsexualism in several countries and world regions and notes a dramatic increase in recent decades. He then attempts to quantify the proportion of these men who are autogynephiles and finds that this proportion may vary by setting.

    >”How many of these MtF transsexuals are nonhomosexual and thus putatively autogynephilic? Currently, well over half of MtF transsexuals in Western countries are nonhomosexual [37], but the percentage varies from country to country. In one recent study [38], about 83% of MtF transsexuals in Belgium and 62% in the Netherlands were nonhomosexual. Comparable percentages in the UK and USA are about 80 and 90%, respectively [37]. In most Asian and Latin American countries, however, nearly all MtF transsexuals are homosexual, whereas autogynephilic transsexualism is rare. The reasons for these cross-cultural differences are not well understood.”<

    One reference given is Lawrence's 2010 paper on the correlation of societal individualism with "nonhomosexual orientation" (i.e. sexual attraction to women, i.e. putative autogynephilia) in male transgenderists. Lawrence (2010) reviewed 22 studies conducted in this population. Studies were published between 1990 and 2010 and were conducted in the USA, Canada and the UK as well as seven European countries, four Asian countries and Brazil. Putative prevalence of autogynephilia ranged from 0% in Singapore (1990) and Brazil (2007) to 91% in USA (2005). A different USA study (1999) found 76% sexually attracted to women. In UK studies, sexual attraction to women ranged from 76% (2001) to 86% (1999).

    Another obvious metric for quantifying autogynephilia is reported sexual excitement or orgasm when men mimic femininity, or fantasize about doing so. A survey of 1032 male "cross-dressers" in USA found that 91% experienced this (Docter & Prince, 1997). Lawrence (2005) found 89% in survey responses from 232 transsexual males who had received genital surgery at USA clinic.

    Statistics for the prevalence of male transgenderism and specificially autoogynephilia in sex offenders are a bit trickier to come by. I have seen little research on prevalence of any type of male transgenderism in sex offenders, subsequent to the 1988 paper by Abel and colleagues. However, a 1999 report by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) cites a 1992 paper by Abel and colleagues, which I cannot get my hands on. The APA report describes Abel's study of 859 "persons" (i.e. men) with paraphilias. In those whose "primary" paraphilia was transvestism, "secondary" paraphilias included non-incest pedophilia focused on girls (5%), non-incest pedophilia focused on boys (5%), voyeurism (15%), obscene phone calls (5%), public masturbation (5%) and bestiality (10%). Looking at respondents whose secondary paraphilia was transvestism, this was found in those whose primary paraphilia was any type of pedophilia (2%-5%), voyeurism (7%), sadism (9%), masochism (15%), obscene phone calling (6%) and last but not least, public masturbation (33%).

    Abel 1992's study population is not well described in the APA report. Based on comparison of survey responses, it might be a different cohort from the 561 participants described in Abel's 1988 paper. In the 1988 paper, Table 4 shows that in men whose primary paraphilia was transvestism, secondary paraphilias included any type of girl-focused pedophilia (23%), any boy-focused pedophilia (13%-23%), rape (7%), exhibitionism (19%), voyeurism (36%), obscene phone calling (19%), public masturbation (10%), etc.

    Krueger & Kaplan (2001) and Lawrence (2009) also cite numerous studies suggesting that male transsexuals and transvestites have a higher prevalence of additional paraphilic interests than could be attributed to chance.


    – Abel GG, Becker JV, Cunningham-Rathner J, Mittelman M, Rouleau JL. Multiple paraphilic diagnoses among sex offenders. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1988;16(2):153-68. Available:
    – Abel GG, Osborn C. The paraphilias. The extent and nature of sexually deviant and criminal behavior. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 1992 Sep;15(3):675-87.
    – American Psychiatric Association (1999). Dangerous Sex Offenders: A Task Force Report of the American Psychiatric Association. Available (mostly):
    – Docter RF, Prince, V. Transvestism: A survey of 1032 cross-dressers. Arch Sex Behav 1997;26:589–605.
    – Krueger RB, Kaplan MS. The paraphilic and hypersexual disorders: an overview. J Psychiatr Pract. 2001 Nov;7(6):391-403.
    – Lawrence AA. Autogynephilia: An underappreciated paraphilia. Adv Psychosom Med. 2011;31:1
    – Lawrence AA. Transgenderism in non-homosexual males as a paraphilic phenomenon: Implications for case conceptualization and treatment. Sex Relationship Ther 2009: 24 (2), pp. 188-206.
    – Lawrence AA. Sexuality before and after male-to-female sex reassignment surgery. Arch Sex Behav. 2005 Apr;34(2):147-66.

    cited by Lawrence 2011:

    – 37. Lawrence AA: Societal individualism predicts prevalence of nonhomosexual orientation in male-to-female transsexualism. Arch Sex Behav 2010;39:573–583.
    – 38. Kreukels BP, Haraldsen IR, de Cuypere G, Richter-Appelt H, Gijs L, Cohen- Kettenis PT: A European network for the investigation of gender incongruence: the ENIGI initiative. Eur Psychiatry 2010, E-pub ahead of print [later in print, 2012 Aug;27(6):445-50]


    1. Interesting further information to look into, Awesome Cat. I wish I could have got a clearer understanding from the 1988 (Abel et al) study about how exactly they defined transvestism. The implication was certainly that the majority of ‘transsexual’ participants (those who were not also recorded as engaging in transvestism) were not autogynephilic. (Agreed, autogynephilia is certainly a paraphilia.) And the study found them to be the studied subgroup *least* likely to qualify for any/additional paraphiliac classifications.

      The transvestic cohort was obviously quite different. Hopefully we can get hold of this slightly later and larger study to see if this sheds new light. Although we do need to be cautious in applying information about trans-engaging males 30 years ago to the current-day situation, especially with regards to younger people.

      We also need to clearly condemn fabrications conducted ostensibly ‘in the name of the cause’. You didn’t comment on the article itself – hopefully that is still coming.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s