Trans Women Should Be Allowed In Women Only Spaces

Where in the report does it say it is transwoman in the prison estate and not transmen? I just read the FOI report and saw this:

There is provision for any female prisoner - trans or not - to be housed in a men's prison if she's deemed especially dangerous. It's more complex if she doesn't have a GRC. In England and Wales, she can only be located in a women's prison if she's had a case conference

I can’t see where it specifically differentiates between transmen and transwoman but I may just be missing it!

Oops cross post, thanks

@EarlyWalker

Sorry just reread and can see you are not returning to the thread so I am reposting with @

If you don't want to return to the thread you can be PM if you want. I'm just really interested in the number of trans men who I have not seen numbers for before.

EarlyWalker

Do you know the source for your photo?

The recent FOI requests showed almost double that number of known transwomen prisoners in the male prison estate.

That's quite a jump in two years.

It’s government published.

Here is the most recent one, page 13 if you’d like to have a read -

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/663390/noms-offender-equalities-annual-report-2016-2017.pdf

EarlyWalker

Do you know the source for your photo?

The recent FOI requests showed almost double that number of known transwomen prisoners in the male prison estate.

That's quite a jump in two years.

Exactly deepwater, and it’s quite disturbing how “our data isn’t good enough to detect any problems when analysed in this particular way” gets translated into “there are no problems” in discussions. You can sweep anything under the rug when you interpret statistics this way.

From the author-

^The individual in the image who is making claims about trans criminality, specifically rape likelihood, is misrepresenting the study findings. The study as a whole covers the period between 1973 and 2003. If one divides the cohort into two groups, 1973 to 1988 and 1989 to 2003, one observes that for the latter group (1989–2003), differences in mortality, suicide attempts and crime disappear. This means that for the 1989 to 2003 group, we did not find a male pattern of criminality.
The difference we observed between the 1989 to 2003 cohort and the control group is that the trans cohort group accessed more mental health care, which is appropriate given the level of ongoing discrimination the group faces. What the data tells us is that things are getting measurably better and the issues we found affecting the 1973 to 1988 cohort group likely reflects a time when trans health and psychological care was less effective and social stigma was far worse.^

The attached photo may also provide some perspective. Of the 70 trans inmates in UK prisons in 2016, only 14 reported their gender as female.

I won’t comment anymore, as I know that facts and statistics are untrue unless they agree with your narrative.

Good luck with finding some evidence for your letter OP. If you struggle, you could always just make something up?

The study found transwomen significantly (20x) more prone to violent crime than women, when the cohort is split you get again pre 1988 being significantly more violent. The post 1988 is simply too small to make any statistical judgement. That has nothing to do with mental healthcare quality, but simply with a too small cohort for meaningful statistical analysis.

Otherwise you could simply make any analysis where you don‘t want to find statistically significant difference so small in cohort, that you can‘t get meaningful statistics.

And once again just for maximum clarity, it is not true that the post 1988 cohort of trans women were not more violent. And it is not what the author said.

The effect is no longer statistical significance for the “post-1988” cohort when trans women and men are lumped together.

It’s not “generalising from a narrow case.” It was a large sample over a period of fifty years.

It’s not a “conspiracy theory.” It’s utterly idiotic to say it is.

I can’t continue to discuss anything with someone who doesn’t know what words mean.

But I’m glad you agree on the following:

-that the paper (which used data from all of the people who underwent transition in Sweden) found transwomen are 20x more violent than women,

-that the author did not retract or contradict this finding

-and that no statistical evidence is available that contradicts this finding.

Cheers.

Yes I’m sure a well respected academic and researcher located in Sweden is just scared of a bunch of TRA in the UK

Try that line In your letter OP, they won’t laugh you out of the building at all. Very scientific.

It clearly states that the violance was only evident in the pre 1988 cohort. After that when people started to recieve better MH provisions, there was no correlation. It also does not state what crimes were committed. This study does not back up your claims, I’m not saying they’re not true as I’ve not seen evidence on either side - but this study does not prove what you do desperatly want it to prove.

homestar Ad hominems on me aren't helping your cause. She clarified the findings to deal with people over-extending her results to imply things they don't. Generalising from a narrow case is just poor science.

You saying "TRAs put acadmics under pressure" is not evidence that this writer has succumbed to such pressure. I note that you provide no other evidence than this smear of her reputation.

It's a conspiracy theory with a non-falsifiable conclusion, and I know from past experience conspiracy theorists double down in the face of contrary evidence.

Can you please try to not be so stupid?

The paper says what it says and she did not contradict those findings. Her “clarification” was a carefully worded obfuscation, not a contradiction. It lumped together transwomen and transmen so her ‘clarification’ was completely irrelevant to the question of how violent trans women are relative to cis women. That’s still in the paper. The result stands. It was not contradicted. The answer is: twenty times more violent.

No conspiracy theory is required to say that TRAs put academics under pressure. It is a well documented fact. It just makes you look even stupider to deny this.

And yes there needs to be more evidence but what academic is going to dare to research the question further? It’s very, very obvious from this paper and from the prison statistics what they would find.

It has been said many times that paper doesn’t mean what you think it means, the author has said it herself to stop using it to try and fit your narrative (and not jsut on transadvocate she also created her own reddit thread)

If your only ‘evidence’ is from a study based on trans people 30 years ago, before there was good mental health support - then citing this evidence makes your argument look weaker than not mentioning it.

And you won’t believe me but I’m genuinely not saying that to be goady, but anyone who reads that study without a bias to either side is likely to view the FPFW analysis as misleading

homestar I am not confused. You are inferring something based on conjecture. You are suggesting that a reputable academic is disputing her own findings because of political pressure, rather than taking her at her word, and believing her when she clarifies her own paper. That is a direct attack on her reputation.

What evidence would accept that she was not doing this? If she told you straight that that wasn't the case, you wouldn't believe her, so your conjecture can't be disproved, and "shadowy forces are conspiring to corrupt her" is a straightforward conspiracy theory.

None of this has any bearing on the argument other than to make that paper disputable. So, I suggest you stop using it as evidence to support your position. It's not.

There is currently no good evidence either way, and that needs to change.

You’re extraordinarily confused. I said the author was playing down the (incidental) findings of the paper under political pressure. That she played down and obfuscated findings is self-evident to anyone who has read both the paper and the quote.

That she was under political pressure can be inferred from circumstantial evidence (quote is from interview in the Transadvocate, the TRA track record with academia) but that is not an allegation against the academic, for crying out loud.

HomeStar that is not evidence she has been nobbled, just your inference, and it’s a pretty serious allegation against a well respected academic. Do you have any direct evidence?

there aren't any more recent studies that either confirm or contradict the findings.

quoting myself to add that although this is the case, the little data that exists on trans prisoners points in a similar direction. FPFW has articles on that too.

there is no mention of a vastly higher criminality rate for trans women in the study, and I don't know where they found the data to interpret it.

the data comparing trans women to "cis" controls for criminality is in Table S2. aHR in this context is (likelihood of a transperson having outcome x)/(likelihood of a cisperson having outcome x), adjusted for demographic characteristics. CI is confidence interval and if this person doesn't know what that is they really, really shouldn't be arguing with FPFW about how to interpret statistics.

Your original claim is completely fair and understandable. I think this person just didn't see the table in the Appendix.

Regarding their "concern" about the data being old, the specific comparison between transwomen and ciswomen on criminality has only been done for the entire group, not for the two separate cohorts.

It's a politically charged area to research (and data as good as this study has is very hard to find), so there aren't any more recent studies that either confirm or contradict the findings.

I read this bloody thing a while ago, and am very annoyed at all the political obfuscation surrounding what are actually extremely clear findings. Once more, with feeling: a TWENTY TIMES HIGHER risk of being convicted of a violent crime. This has very important implications for the safety of women and girls. Why was it buried in an Appendix? Why has no one researched this further? I mean, I know why, but I just wanted to rant for a moment.

Oh, another interesting thing about that paper is the comparison with "birth sex controls". They were controlling for psychiatric issues, which you need to do when trying to estimate the impact of treatment, but it's not relevant when you're trying to estimate the risk of allowing transwomen into female spaces.

There are way more psychiatric issues in the trans population than in the population at large. Transwomen were not significantly more violent than men who have a similar degree of psychiatric issues, but they are significantly more violent than men on average. (i.e. you don't need the adjusted hazard ratio for these purposes, you need the raw hazard ratio.)

The author of that paper said that in the TransAdvocate, so it's quite clear that their career was under pressure when she said it - the manner in which TRAs bully academics is very well-documented.

Retroactively dividing the groups into two cohorts like that (and lumping transwomen and transmen together only for that one results table which uses the two cohorts) is statistical gerrymandering to whitewash unpalatable results.

Yes, the author successfully managed to dispel the political pressure on her by fucking with the data in a way that made the results on violent crime nonsignificant for the later cohort, but it's not a very good figleaf.

The main author of the study you pointed at said: "As to the criminality metric itself, we were measuring and comparing the total number of convictions, not conviction type. We were not saying that cisgender males are convicted of crimes associated with marginalization and poverty. We didn’t control for that and we were certainly not saying that we found that trans women were a rape risk. What we were saying was that for the 1973 to 1988 cohort group and the cisgender male group, both experienced similar rates of convictions. As I said, this pattern is not observed in the 1989 to 2003 cohort group."