Why are trans people the "most marginalised and vulnerable" in society?

I was agreeing with you, midge

The majority of women murdered are killed by men either in their home or who they have a relationship with.

I was talking uk

It's not true of MTFs as a group for any race, but I think it is probably true of white men as a whole as men are both more violent and at more risk of being killed. I don't think it's helpful to compare "white middle aged middle class men" against all women.

I've seen figures for America broken down by race, and it is true that across all races men are at more risk than women there. Would be interested to see male homicide figures by race in the U.K. if anyone has them.

women group proportionally they are statistically more likely to experience marginalisation and violence

Show me a woman over the age of 12 who has not been subject to some form of sexual harassment on a par with misgendering.

A transwoman in a women's toilet is potentially at risk of being misgendered (correctly sexed) and being asked to leave.

The women with the transwoman in the women's toilet are potentially at risk of being assualted, raped and made pregnant.

A transman in the men's is at risk of both of the above.

Those who say trans people are the most vulnerable need to ask themselves which is worse; a man's feelings being hurt or a woman being raped?

They're not.

It's a perpetual self victimhood narrative that they culture, and force others to believe.
There are never any statistics that go along with this claim, just "oh look, poor trans people being murdered, abused, victimised, bullied etc" but never any actual proof.

On the other hand the statistics for abuse against women (overwhelmingly by men) is very clear.

The great shame is that so many at high levels of society including the Government, Police, Law and others have either bought into this narrative or been forced and coerced into it by organisations like Stonewall, who continually misrepresent things like these "statistics" or the Equality Act, and they then make policies based on flawed logic with no real proof.

The truth is that TW remain in the same category as other men when it comes to crime statistics.
The abomination is that some of those statistics are now skewed because their crimes are documented and registered as female crimes.

All I can say is CORRECT this every time you hear someone saying it. People need to know these claims are built around insubstantial fluff.

Otherwise you can argue that any group of men - all Kevin's - are killed at a highe rate than women

It’s not true of all groups of men. It’s not true of Korean men (violence generally is very low there, but violence against women isn’t.) It’s probably not true of white middle aged middle class men in this country. And it’s not true of TW in this country.

Don't more men die of violence than women

Surely the correct comparison is "are transowmwn proportionately more likely to be killed by violence then men ?"

Otherwise you can argue that any group of men - all Kevin's - are killed at a highe rate than women

It's just with male violence you are as likely to be a victim as offender whereas women tend to be victims

More women die from violent attacks but less as a percentage of their entire group as it’s significantly larger than trans people.

That isn’t true. Trans people have a lower rate of being murdered than women in this country. Which is interesting, because usually more violent groups or individuals have a higher likelihood of being victims of violence, for very obvious reasons. But TW are far more violent than women.

I haven’t looked at the statistics but I’d hazard a guess that the same extrapolation would exist for other minority groups as the trans community make up such a tiny percentage of the population (0.001% I think)

Isn’t it to do with percentages? So as the trans community is much smaller than the cis (I understand this term isn’t liked but i’m using it for clarity) women group proportionally they are statistically more likely to experience marginalisation and violence.

More women die from violent attacks but less as a percentage of their entire group as it’s significantly larger than trans people.

Once you realise that so many of those are male, middle-aged and more than capable of looking after themselves, then it's clearly nothing more than entitlement with bells on, and utter nonsense to anyone with a brain.

I honestly read that as 'entitlement with balls on'.

Yes everyone realises that.

But the issues surrounding FtM trans people and MtF trans people are very different.

And while FtM have very specific vulnerabilities, when the discussion is on the impact on others, it is perhaps obvious that MtF transitioned are considered more significant in terms of the impact on others around them.

It's another reason to be very careful to not spout mantras like "trans people are X" because we know that there are discrete groups with very different needs and considerations.

Do you mean here on this board? Or generally ?

Because on this board we are very conscious of the female transitioners. Many have them in our daily lives.

This is a feminism board, of course, and those female transitioners still need the rights that feminists fight for due to their biological needs and the impact of being female in this society.

And that includes their own safety from all males too.

No other minority gets treated that way?

No because for many other minorities the reason you are a minority sticks out and so the population treats you badly before you say anything!

Are transgender people more often arrested ? More often raped ? More often living in poverty ?

I don't think so

www.scientificamerican.com/article/unraveling-the-mindset-of-victimhood/

Being vulnerable is being vulnerabl

That's circular logic and is nonsense, as is the rest of that post.

But society treats loads of people terribly! And there are demonstrable poor outcomes for many groups with certain characteristics. It's not a competition and it's not a hierarchy, and constantly repeating like parrots the assertion that one disparate group with no actual objective definition and into which you can self opt is to be prioritised and not questioned because of it is dangerous. It's both not likely to improve their outcomes, and risks the sacred caste fallouts.

How about people who are homeless and addicted to substances? Unable to access clean clothes and washing facilities, even if they vomit or are incontinent? (Many with a history of being in care, the services, severe mental health problems)

How about people with physical disabilities and medical needs who are incontinent, wheelchair users, unable to swallow their own saliva and drive, unable to communicate?

People with dermatological conditions, scarring, facial disfigurements, large birth marks, squints and lazy eyes, mobility aids...

Mental health conditions, tics, regulation problems, social anxieties, low literacy, speech and language difficulties, dementia, memory problems, acquired brain injuries....

Loads of groups have a really, really hard time. Have assumptions made about them and treated with less respect, accessibility, inclusion etc.

The world is a really hard and difficult place for many. We as a society are not particularly kind to those who are different. We all need to be part of improving things where we can.

But just awarding random hierarchical priorities and not considering the impact on others is not the way to go.

Do people not actually realise some trans people are not men transitioning to women but women transitioning to men? This whole debate is generally about male perpetrators and women’s safety.

Quite. Then add on the premise of high suicide risk.

We are failing our children on this. I find the #nodebate, resistance to questions, lack of proper controlled studies, lack of follow up, lack of full appreciation of the consequences wholly unscientific and a significant risk for children.

Vulnerable is an odd word. We use it a lot at work but have to define it. Vulnerable to what. My feet are vulnerable to feeling cold. A woman alone in a foreign country with no support is vulnerable to exploitation. It's about proximity and how likely something is. Not the consequences or significance of that. The more vulnerable you are to something, the more likely that something will happen. How bad the result is then needs to be determined.

So I suspect a transperson is more vulnerable to misgendering than the average person. I assume the consequences of that are feeling marginalised.

So in the context of most vulnerable to being misgendered, they are probably correct. Most vulnerable to murder? Probably not.

Other vulnerabilities would need to consider the driver for that vulnerability. Is it being in care. Being autistic. Being trans. Combination. Etc.

Keir Starmer supports Nicola Sturgeon's abuser's charter:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11651245/Keir-Starmer-sides-Nicola-Sturgeon-Scottish-gender-law.html

And Emily Thornberry pretended that Lloyd Rustle-Moyle didn't abuse Rosie Duffield.

This tweet by SalGrover could be said to be the journey of some, if not many posters from what I have read over the years.

Every journey goes

“I’m kind! TWAW!”
“If they’ve transitioned they can use female spaces”
“They’re saying what to lesbians?”
“What is autogynophilia?”
“You mean they’re saying they actually ARE women?”
“Wait. What laws have changed?”
“I don’t care if you call me a bigot”
“TWAM.”

twitter.com/salltweets/status/1615624765963931651?s=46&t=cwB2MhT1vSN7a6R3_cKXlg

I wonder about the effect this mantra of most marginalised in society has on younger trans people. For a demographic that are already said to have poor mental health it must be an added strain if they believe that they are the most marginalised and vulnerable.