Question on gender critical resource thread(25 Posts)
I keep seeing certain things linked or quoted on Facebook & twitter and the same criticisms of each.
With the Swedish cohort study the primary author is quoted as saying it doesn't prove transwomen are violent because it is a study of two groups and the later group don't show anymore violence than women.
Also the information on the cps document is refuted as apparently parents are making 5 this up. Is there a link to the actual document itself? And has it been changed since the complaints?
This is a good analysis of the Swedish study. After the author spoke about it
It's from a Facebook group called gender critical scientific resources. It's a closed group, but you can easily join. They are mostly scientists and will only look at peer reviewed articles and pick them apart.
I read the original publication endorsed by the CPS. I'll see if I can find it, it certainly wasn't made up.
This is the link to the Swedish study given on the reference thread. If you click on 'Results' on the left hand side and scroll down to 'Gender differences' it quite clearly says the following:
"Second, regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime."
Here an analysis of the CPS document. There is a link in the article to the actual document, too.
Betsy every time that is quoted I see it refuted because the primary author pposted a statement saying that the study doesn't prove transwomen retain male rates of violent crime because it was done on two groupings and only three furst shows male rates of violence the second doesn't. (Pressumabley their conclusion would adjust for that but this is the authors claim). I will try the Facebook link when I have time.
The cps link is the one I see criticised as the evaluation was done by bigots apparently. They demand a copy of the document which I'm not sure I can find. (And I thought they were changing it or something from the last I remember on the complaints about it, so would need the original document before changes)
I'm also hearing constantly how Dr Elliott's work proves transideology and she supports trans people or conversely that no one in science accepts her findings.
This is the original publication, taken from my link.
In terms of the Swedish study. The link I provided gives a breakdown of what the author said.
In terms of trans-women displaying male pattern violence, I believe there are links to prison statistics which endorse it. They also suggest that sexual crime is higher amongst that group.
Transwomen can be broken down into homosexual and heterosexual. Sexual orientation changes the results.
They also have different results in terms of brain scans.
Heterosexual transwomen (i.e. attracted to women) have exactly the same brain scans as men.
Homosexual transwomen are the ones where the results aren't as conclusive. But whether that's more to do with the homosexuality, rather than the trans part, is also difficult to prove.
Also VoidoidDash, because the controversy is raging at the moment, it almost seems as though you can find any study to refute any other study.
In addition, people will cherry pick bits from a study to support their argument. And ignore anything that undermines it.
That's why that scientific Facebook page is good. They are only interested in proper, controlled studies showing real results.
As per Datun's link above, the second group included transmen so it is impossible to draw any conclusions.
Is the author now backtracking on the results of the study?
Crosspost! Here's the California study on over 300 transgender prisoners:
Interesting. I've only skimmed the tables. But it would appear that yes there is a strong correlation between transwomen and men in terms of crime, but sexual crime is far higher among the trans population. As are mental health issues. Much higher.
The report is sympathetic. It suggests that trans-people should have separate facilities in order to accommodate their own particular needs.
From a woman's point of view, the last thing I want is somebody who has male pattern violence, a propensity for sexual crime and who has mental health issues anywhere near me in my spaces.
It's still astonishes me that the way we are treating this problem is politically and not medically.
Will read all the links when I'm in later. But yes the author is quoted as saying the second grouping having higher rates of violence means transwomen pose no risk and they don't want the study used to incite violence against transpeople and transwomen are not rapist or something to that effect.
Datun yes about finding a study to show everything, but this is what I see women accused of. A metanalysis is not just a study yet it's refuted with another that claims to be accepted by all experts.
Yeah, have a look at that Facebook site. I'm not a scientist, so I get lost. I would be really interested to know what you think.
All I can go on is anecdote, but every single transactivist I come into contact with online is violent.
That might mean that the nice ones don't go online. But then they wouldn't be activists.
And they are like clones of each other. They say the same things. Over and over. They never engage properly, just shout and threaten.
Of all people, you would think if they had a body of evidence behind them, they would be able to back up their argument. But it doesn't happen.
But yes the author is quoted as saying the second grouping having higher rates of violence means transwomen pose no risk and they don't want the study used to incite violence against transpeople and transwomen are not rapist or something to that effect.
I've read the source article you're talking about - the trouble is that the figures aren't released to confirm that, and it's only one interview on a website, she hasn't gone on the record in a journal, or explained why the study says what it says, or done anything to make it seem like the study really is being misrepresented. Because of that, my GCSE history kicks in, and tells me to consider the sources - one unverified, unregulated website says that the author said these different things and doesn't include the data to prove it, vs. a peer reviewed, journal published study which said something else, and does have the data to prove it. I'm obviously willing to see new evidence, but as things stand, only one of those sources has any credibility - after all I could put anything I liked in an article on a website, pretend to be anyone, it has no standing at all!
Ah, right, those slides are excellent Datun - really clear explanation of the issues and what it could be said to show (and how reliable that is)
Yes chocolate I considered that. But if it was faked wouldn't the author come forward to say so? I wouldn't be comfortable just leaving others to misrepresent my words. I guess it's possible that it's not got back to the author but i have seen it qouted repeatedly. I also find it strange the other authors haven't voiced anything.
That study has been used extensively to back up the argument of why women don't want transwomen in their spaces.
It's interesting that the author has come out to clarify the results, but is very keen to let everyone know that she was never suggesting transwomen commit rape at a high level.
It's just a very specific clarification. As if she has been accused of something. The study looks at violent crime, not rape in particular (cold comfort).
It's also rather odd that given the author went to all that trouble to create the study, she allowed the second cohort's results to be somewhat compromised by including women in the results.
I should imagine she was got at. When you look at Blanchard, Bailey, etc, and how they were persecuted, nothing would surprise me.
Can anyone who doesn't mind helping find me a tweet-able link for 'how to be a better cis-ally'. I can't find the original link I had, the site-stop transhovanism has been deleted- and although I can find the article I can't find one I can tweet.
Betsy what does the california study show about transwomens rates of violence?
(I'm recovering from surgery so full of pain medication)
It says it's by 'Devonsilence'. It's a satirical piece. I got about half way down getting more and more angry before I realised it was a spoof. Hard to tell the difference these days.
Drawing on official data and original interview data on 315 transgender inmates in California prisons for men, this research provides the first empirical portrayal of a prison population in California that is unique by virtue of being both transgender and incarcerated.
For the purposes of this study, a transgender inmate is an inmate in a men’s prison who: (1) self-identifies as transgender (or something analogous); (2) presents as female, transgender, or feminine in prison or outside of prison; (3) receives any kind of medical treatment (physical or mental) for something related to how she presents herself or thinks about herself in terms of gender, including taking hormones to initiate and sustain the development of secondary sex characteristics to enhance femininity; or (4) participates in groups for transgender inmates.
The study found that 20.5% of the trans inmates were registered sex offenders, compared with 14.6% of the non-trans inmates.
There's also Alice Dreger's How to be an Ally to Cis Women which is a very sensible article.
Does the california study include tw soliciting? Or just actual sex offenses
By my reading, prostitution isn't covered (the soliciting a sex crime seems to specifically relate to the crimes in the list above it, rather than prostitution)
OP, read Datun's slides. They make it really very clear that the study author's statement is false. The two sets of figures are not the same population.
And re the CPS pack, what are they saying isn't true? I would be interested to know what transactivists think is going too far.
Join the discussion
Please login first.