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.


The infallibility of the oppressed: Story of one influential trans activist


by Overwhelmed

I recently came across this well-written article from a former social justice activist. It reveals how people with good intentions try to change the world for the better, but can end up doing just the opposite. Here are some quotes from the essay that I thought were particularly relevant:

 “I need to tell people what was wrong with the activism I was engaged in, and why I bailed out.

This particular brand of politics begins with good intentions and noble causes, but metastasizes into a nightmare. In general, the activists involved are the nicest, most conscientious people you could hope to know.”

“There is something dark and vaguely cultish about this particular brand of politics. I’ve thought a lot about what exactly that is. I’ve pinned down four core features that make it so disturbing: dogmatism, groupthink, a crusader mentality, and anti-intellectualism.”

“Perhaps the most deeply held…

View original post 2,405 more words