Help please! Need info re. trans-women assault statistics

Unless their pool is VERY small in which case the stats are not meaningful.

Well in 2018 Google tells me that

'In 2018, advocates tracked at least 26 deaths of at least transgender or gender non-conforming people in the U.S. due to fatal violence, the majority of whom were Black transgender women. '

www.hrc.org/resources/violence-against-the-transgender-community-in-2019

Which makes the above a gross, flat out lie. (Although now I've lost it on thread. It was the handwritten one with 1000+ for this group).

This seems a huge number of black trans people.

'"Do you have any figures to prove that a higher prpoportion of Trans-women sexually assualt women than cis-women?"

If it's women asking it's baffling.

I have had a stack of dodgy stuff from men.

Zero from women.

All women and girls, or pretty much all, know that if there's a creepy perv about it's a bloke.

Any man can ID as a woman now.

So erm...

How are these women disconnecting from their own experiences so much? I find it baffling.

Answer is. No stats. Crimes are recorded on self ID and have been for years (without anyone knowing why or when the police forces did that).

m.youtube.com/watch?v=9NpIy-0_esU

These are not our crimes. Not statistics but a collection of these guys.

This Never Happens is another good resource
www.facebook.com/groups/1722756661380462/

Stealhsquirrelnutkin thank you for the link, its a really interesting & significant document.

The table covers both rape and the crime 'assault by penetration' that covers 'non-consenting penetration of the vagina or anus' which can be committed by a woman and carries the same maximum sentence as rape.

The sole woman must be Gayle Newland, she was found guilty on three counts of sexual assault by penetration in July 2017.

It was a very strange and unusual case that got a lot more news coverage than the other 658 convictions, most of which we never heard about, probably considered too 'dog bites man' to be newsworthy.

I have no idea how many other women, if any, have been found guilty of assault by penetration, before 2017. We need statistics for the previous 30 years, to put 2017 into perspective.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/29/gayle-newland-found-guilty-at-retrial-of-tricking-female-friend-into-sex

Out of 659 people convicted of rape, 658 were male. According to my (questionable) maths that makes 0.0015% of all the convicted rapists in 2017 female.

This convicted 'female' must have been male though.
Rape (in the UK) is a specifically male crime requiring 'penetration with a penis of the vagina, anus or mouth of another person without their consent'.

"Do you have any figures to prove that a higher prpoportion of Trans-women sexually assualt women than cis-women?"

Glad you asked.

I went looking for statistics and found a big government spreadsheet with loads of information, it's called Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System 2017 tinyurl.com/yc7lob6f

Table 13 handily records the sex of everyone convicted of rape (or assault by penetration) in 2017.
Out of 659 people convicted of rape, 658 were male. According to my (questionable) maths that makes 0.0015% of all the convicted rapists in 2017 female. We can expect that figure to change rapidly, now that crimes are being recorded by gender identity rather than sex. Almost makes you wonder why there has been such a push for that particular change doesn't it?

So yep, along with the Swedish study quoted upthread that shows males retain the same pattern of offending after transition, there are plenty of statistics to back up what you have been saying (and what everyone and his dog, already knew).

Sexual crimes are overwhelmingly perpetrated by males, and transitioning does not make males any less likely to commit sexual crimes at the same rate as other men.

At this point I'm close to letting them have access to the female sex spaces they want on the condition there are third spaces/sports/services provided for radfems etc. Then they get access to 'single sex' spaces and I get access to spaces that only allow for females. Anyone can join, all young children and any human female that would prefer to undress around/compete against/recover from trauma with/be incarcerated with only other human females. The same goes for legal protections too. Have I fixed it?

A quarter to a third of women have already been sexually assaulted, almost a third experience domestic violence in their lifetime. Should we deny these women the right to be in female only spaces when they require it, especially when vulnerable, or should we insist they accept a male-bodied person who says he's a woman (and wants to get into her space even though it's triggering a trauma-response of fear and she doesn't want him there)?

I think people are just ignoring the bits of my comments that they don't want to see. I don't think I'll ever convince the aggressive TWAW types to think anything different but I'm hoping there are other people reading and maybe being woken up to this stuff, like I was by reading threads here.

This recent speech in the Australian Senate by Claire Chandler is an excellent clear summary of the issues.

Those who are attacking women standing up for sex based rights and Safeguarding should be asked to watch it and reflect before they make demands of your energies and time.

As there is absolutely no way of sorting the good from the indifferent from the very bad indeed, all men must be excluded.

Ralph Lucas is a Conservative back bencher in The House of Lords.
May 5th 2020 he published clarification he had received from the government of the definition used for man and woman. This is based in Equality Act 2010
twitter.com/LordLucasCD/status/1257642470692868097

Lord Lucas wrote,

"Definitions. The government has helpfully pointed out the definitions that they use

"Man": from the Equality Act 2010: 'A male of any age'

"Woman": from the Equality Act 2010: 'A female of any age'"

It may be useful in many circumstances to apply such definitions (respectfully) in order to make the sense and implications clearer. This is particularly relevant in circumstances which concern the Safeguarding of children or Vulnerable Adults. This of course is pertinent to the rights of 'females of any age' in single sex services or spaces.

As "Man": from the Equality Act 2010: 'A male of any age'" therefore surely a male of any age may thus, and should for clarity, be described as a man?

Tens of thousands of women and girls in this country are harmed in some way by men every year. Millions and millions throughout the world. Those men should not be allowed into women’s spaces, regardless of how they identify, what they feel like, what they want, how they look or choose to dress, or what title they have thought of to describe themselves, or misappropriated.

As there is absolutely no way of sorting the good from the indifferent from the very bad indeed, all men must be excluded.

Even if there was a way to sort and define and establish that all the relevant men were good, decent, kind men, they still should not be allowed to enter women’s spaces, because a male presence, however benign, is very directly harmful to a certain number of women. A male presence, however benign, is not comfortable for women and girls in their very private, vulnerable spaces. Decent men all know this. Which is why they do not want to be in women’s spaces.

Rowantrees you are absolutely right. However, as a counter to the bad faith questions asking women to justify maintaining the integrity of female only spaces it may sometimes have a place as it will almost never be able to be proved and may shut down an argument at least for a while.

Please do not use the term ‘c**’. It is highly offensive.

I am not a subset of something a man has decided he is or wants to be. I am a woman.

There is no right to share intimate spaces with members of the opposite sex without their consent

That's it, in a nutshell.

Male demands are prioritised over women's consent. And all in the name of equality and inclusion.

Therefore if anyone who is not female wants to be admitted to these places it is up to THEM to prove that they present no threat.

There are many men who might by reasonable definitions be able to demonstrate that they are no threat to women & girls' safety. I could probably endorse quite a few with 99% certainty. None though can be admitted to female spaces or services on such basis since it disregards girls and women's dignity & privacy a well as ignoring the importance of each individual girl or woman's right to withold consent.

It really is time to change the focus of these type of questions. Female only spaces were set up for females. Therefore if anyone who is not female wants to be admitted to these places it is up to THEM to prove that they present no threat.

"Do you have any figures to prove that a higher prpoportion of Trans-women sexually assualt women than cis-women?"

As well as girls and women's safety, female spaces are also for their dignity and privacy.

Maya Forstater's article makes clear that this is an issue of women and girls' consent. A core principle of consent is, of course, that it should be informed consent.

(extract)
"Why has this become so difficult?
The rules and expectations about single sex services have become confused.

Some people think they are based on ‘gender identity’

Some think they are based on ‘gender expression’
(clothing and appearance)

Some think there are no rules at all

There is no right to share intimate spaces with members of the opposite sex without their consent

Where a service is provided for a single sex, whether for everyday privacy or a situation such as a rape crisis centre or a women’s refuge, there should be no need to negotiate with each individual member of the opposite sex about why it is not open to them."

a-question-of-consent.net/

Fair Play For Women point out that if we put transwomen sex offenders in women's prisons, then 3 years ago 1 in 3 would be trans.

If 1 in 50 sex offenders in the male estate are now claiming to be trans, and if (as in the past) sex offenders are over represented, then there will be more trans women sex offenders in prison now than natal women sex offenders. Which is what the SNP Rhona Hotchkiss said is presently the case in Scotland. She was governor of a women's prison, so has expertise in the area.

Necessary disclaimer: trans women are NOT more criminal than anyone else born male. They're simply committing crimes at male rates. They're not in any way a scary or dangerous group of people. They're just a male group of people, with the increased propensity for violent crime of that half of the human population. And that increased propensity is why we have separate spaces to begin with.

There are 33 million women in the country, and around 120 sex offenders in prison.

There are estimated to be 200,000 trans women in the country, and 60 sex offenders were known to be in prison 3 years ago.

For rates to be equivalent, you would need 16.5 million trans women.

(There were, at the time, 33,000 men in prison for sex offences. Men commit them at a massively, massively higher rate.)

I would also stress that trans women don't commit more such offences than any other male. But they are doing so at male rates. Which makes the notion of 'brain in wrong body' a bit questionable, at best.

The Ministry of Justice also released figures last year that say 1 in 50 male prisoners are now claiming to be trans. The belief is that they are lying to gain advantage, but that's also not reassuring given we are constantly told nobody would lie about that to gain advantage.

Ask them what proof they have that transwomen commit less crimes of violence than others born male!