Stats on attack on women by men self identifying as women?

Additionally there don't seem to be be many trans women involved in gang violence, organised crime, terror, street fighting and many of the other crimes that often land men in jail.

Judging by newspaper articles and the prison statistics there do seem to be quite a lot of self-identified trans women involved in sexual crimes. I'm sure you have some reason for thinking that newspaper articles and prison statistics don't count as evidence, but they're certainly enough evidence to overturn any presumption that trans women have female pattern criminality. Whether they have exactly the same crime patterns as other males is a moot point, they shouldn't be placed with women.

I'm not sure about that @Kantastic, we found no result is a perfectly valid and important conclusion to a piece of research.

lots of trans women are not attracted to women, lots of trans women take drugs which can eliminate sexual function and desire and some trans women don't have a penis.

Have you got stats for any of these claims? Very, very few transwomen are missing a penis, iirc, and I've not ever seen any stats for the preceding two statements.

When we're talking about risk of violence, sexual violence, and until I see evidence that transwomen are somehow different than males (I can't see any so far) then we err on the side of retaining protection. Otherwise women are exposed to risk, even if that risk is unknown, you can't just remove protections before assessing it.

Excuse me while I get fucking MAD about the abuse of statistics by the trans lobby.

First, Djehne et al. They DID NOT find that post-1990 transexuals are criminal at the same rate as women.
They lumped trans men and trans women together in the post 1990 group as FPFW pointed out. The only part of that study which directly compared transwomen with women showed TW 40 times more likely to commit a violent crime.

And even more importantly, there aren't that many violent crime convictions in this study. The main reason they didn't find a difference in the second group is that when they divide the sample into two, N is too small to detect the difference in crime rates.

The trans lobby have lied about this consistently. Djehne et al didn't detect "no difference." They just failed to detect a difference. When you don't find something, it doesn't mean it isn't there. It could be just because you haven't got your glasses on. In this case dividing the data into two groups is the equivalent of taking your glasses off so you can't see the elephant in the room.

And speaking of, that stupid study about bathrooms and crime rates. Exact same deal. They failed to detect a difference in reported crimes after trans bathroom laws were passed. Is that because there is no difference? Or because the methods they used didn't have the statistical power to detect a difference? No normal statistical study would report "we found no result" as if it was an actual result, and if it did it wouldn't get published,. but special rules apply to trans statistics.

I've seen this exact fallacy in trans-agenda neuroscience too! Well, our tests didn't find anything so we'll assume this proves our point. All you're proving is that you don't understand statistics! I never see that fallacy in any other topic, I swear to god. I never wonder if the authors of a non trans related paper might have deliberately taken their statistical glasses off (reduced the power of their analysis) because in normal academic topics authors aren't incentivised to not find the elephant in the room.

But when it comes to all things trans, I guess if their findings identify as valid that's good enough. Thank fuck this trend of not questioning TRA-friendly bullshit statistics has been comprehensively called out, with that backlash to the AJP article.

There's no evidence that they don't.

@FireUnderTheHand I'm not saying it never, of course some trans women have committed awful crimes, the question is whether trans womet have male patterns of criminality and there is no evidence that they do.

The Swedish research may not have proved definitively that its small group of transexual people shared the same rate of criminality as others born the same sex as them. However, neither did it prove that they didn't .Surely the evidence which is required is evidence of a substantial difference in criminality ; a difference comparable to the female rate of criminality, between male people who live as males and those males who identify as women . Until such a difference is proved there should be no question of including Transwomen in female only places

Explanation of the statistics in the Swedish study here,;
fairplayforwomen.com/criminality/

If someone can show me evidence that transwomen are no more of a threat than women, I will be happy to hear that. As said above, before one removes protections, it's necessary to prove that the protection is no longer needed.

There would be less heat if we could keep accurate statistics in the first place.

[quote ANewCreation]I think it's important to remember that all the subjects of the early Swedish studies by Dhejne et al were people who had had full genital surgery, so what would have been called transsexuals.

It's almost impossible to extrapolate from those individuals to today's enormously expanded trans umbrella, whether we look at levels of desistance or patterns of criminality.

While Dhejne appears to somewhat contradict her 2011 findings in the Transadvocate article (and it is a shame that she doesn't seem to have produced an academic clarification) she is emphatically not saying that transwomen in the second cohort commit no crimes / have female pattern criminality. Instead they exhibit a pattern of criminality many orders higher than that of 'ciswomen' just maybe not quite as much as 'cismen'.

There might be some interesting links in the following, OP.

speakupforwomen.nz/sufw_essays/reasons-for-safeguarding-concerns-with-self-id/[/quote]
I agree it's quite unclear what Dhejne means, I think somewhere else I saw it discussed that post 1990 both trans and the control groups crime levels were the same. This could be because trans men's patterns were elevated to the mens control groups (a finding of the study), and trans women's decreased to the level of the women's control group and so it balanced out, or that trans mens crimes were slightly lower and trans womens slightly higher. We don;t know is the truth, maybe Djhene does and thats what she refers to on the transadvocate site, but we cant say for sure. What we can say is that not knowing is not the same as proving something, and more importantly, its such a small sample size, without adequate weighting, based on data thats almost 50 years old in some cases.

I don;t think it's fair or legitimate to use this study as evidence of male pattern criminality when it shows nothing of the sort and I see it used all the time. And I think it's important that is pointed out that it is incorrect. If someone was trying to make a claim of increased criminality amongst a certain ethnic group or other marginalised group based on such weak evidence then I think most people might question the motivations of those making the claims. I can understand why many trans women may have similiar suspicions when people claim a tiny and imperfect study based on a handful of violent crimes decades ago is used to portray them as a threat. I think it would take a lot of heat out of this discussion (on both sides) if people didnt misrepresent evidence in a way which could be construed as hurtful or socially damaging

Sorry - I misread your last sentence. I don't see how you can discuss the risks associated with transwomen in women's spaces without defining both of those terms.

So first its 'find me a criminal' and when the website full of criminals is offered the goalposts are moved and its 'find me a serial killer'.

Okay, then how are you defining a transwoman?

"Donna Perry, formerly Douglas Perry, is a transgender woman accused of murdering Yolanda Sapp, Nickie Low and Kathleen Brisbois in 1990." Spokane, WA, USA

Matthew Harks (Fraser Valley Institute in B.C., released). Tara Pearsall (Fraser Valley Institute in B.C.), Fallon Aubee (Fraser Valley Institute in B.C.). Tara Desousa (Fraser Valley Institute in B.C.). John Boulachanis (only denied transfer thus far because of flight risk not because of risk to women). A serial pedophile. A serial sex offender. A contract killer. A child killer. A murderer. All either seeking to be housed in women's prisons or already residing in women's prisons with unreasonable proximity to mother/baby blocks. Violent male offenders housed with non-violent female offenders and babies/toddlers.

Never. Happens.

As I say, I didn't really post to discuss whether trans women or women or discuss women's sports, but really to answer the ops questions about evidence of a possible safety risk due to trans inclusion. I think that can be discussed in terms of the evidence to date without addressing the broader questions simply because the evidence addresses what has actually happened, regardless of how people see themselves, or what exactly constitutes a trans woman.

I think it's important to remember that all the subjects of the early Swedish studies by Dhejne et al were people who had had full genital surgery, so what would have been called transsexuals.

It's almost impossible to extrapolate from those individuals to today's enormously expanded trans umbrella, whether we look at levels of desistance or patterns of criminality.

While Dhejne appears to somewhat contradict her 2011 findings in the Transadvocate article (and it is a shame that she doesn't seem to have produced an academic clarification) she is emphatically not saying that transwomen in the second cohort commit no crimes / have female pattern criminality. Instead they exhibit a pattern of criminality many orders higher than that of 'ciswomen' just maybe not quite as much as 'cismen'.

There might be some interesting links in the following, OP.

speakupforwomen.nz/sufw_essays/reasons-for-safeguarding-concerns-with-self-id/

I mean, really the only logical conclusion to TWAW is removing all sex categories and all sex segregation. Otherwise, where can we draw the lines? Sex offenders - not allowed in women's spaces? Cross dressers - not allowed in women's spaces? So how do we differentiate between, say Alex Drummond and Pips Bunce? What about sports? Rugby? Wrestling? Where and how do we draw these lines?

The only way we can preserve the protections women have fought long and hard for is by sex segregation. I can't see another workable solution - other than perhaps third spaces.

It specifically mentions the extension of Title IX from sex to gender, which is the specific re-interpretation of law which is fucking over women's sports.

But there's also the broader issue of women's privacy - like the girls' swim team who ended up changing in the janitor's cupboard because of (IIRC) an adult transwomen who insisted on using the open plan changing room at the same time as their swim practise. Something that clearly made the girls uncomfortable, behaviour which, in any other male-bodied individual, would open them up to justifiable accusations of indecent exposure and/or voyeurism.

But because the author of the article is fully signed up to "some women have penises, get over it", behaviour which we don't tolerate in other male bodied people just gets air brushed out of the record.

No recorded instances because behaviours have been redefined such that the behaviour doesn't count any more.

It's Orwellian.