Debunking False Stats On MTF Sexual & Physical Assault Rates

The size of the transgender population experiencing victimization in the survey (approximately 0.1%) is concerning. US surveys suggest that overall the population above 13 is approximately 1% trans identifying.

If the trans and non-trans populations had similar rates of victimization then you would expect to see this reflected in the size of the two populations i.e for 435,000 non trans people you would expect to see 4,350 trans people. The survey records about 10x less than this.

I'm not that sure why this would be but two possibilities are

• trans people are 10x less likely to report victimization
• trans people are 10x less likely to experience victimization

The survey then looks at the two populations and their rate of reporting in isolation. The comparison of these two rates gives the four to one head line whilst ignoring that the trans population is 10x smaller than expected

A better summary of the report might be

Trans people are ten times less likely to report victimization than the rest of the population . Those trans people that do report victimization report it at four times the rate of the rest of the population

Equally, as you can't tell if it is reporting or experiencing this could be true

Trans people are ten times less likely to experience victimization than the rest of the population . Those trans people that do report victimization report it at four times the rate of the rest of the population

It's interesting that the words 'four times as likely..' is now a warning that the piece it appears in is unreliable.

It's like 'intersex people are as common as redheads' - a big flashing red light that the writer hasn't done their own research and is just copying and pasting from a source that copied and pasted from a source.....that copied and pasted from a 2000 source so discredited that even the original author, Anne Fausto-Sterling, admitted it was mistaken.

Are they? Without it being clear or traceable back to a reference that clarifies, I am not making assumptions.

In fact, here is a definition from rape crisis. “Sexual assault happens when someone either touches another person in a sexual manner without consent or makes another person touch them in a sexual manner without consent.”

This is what I have always believed it was.

https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/types-of-sexual-violence/what-is-sexual-assault/#:~:text=Sexual%20assault%20happens%20when%20someone,someone's%20genitals%2C%20breasts%20or%20bottom.

Two points that stood out in the Williams Institute paper:

Transgender women and men had higher rates of violent victimization (86.1 and 107.5 per 1,000 people, respectively) than cisgender women and men (23.7 and 19.8 per 1,000 people, respectively).

So actual women have a higher rate of violent victimisation than actual men with a difference of 3.9 per 1,000.

When you look at ‘transwomen’ vs ‘transmen’, (obviously they transposed the sexes in these figures - another dishonest sleight of hand) the ‘transmen’ (also women) also report a higher rate of violent victimisation with a difference of 21.4. But it is significantly higher.

The big question, when these trans identifying females often hang out, fairly exclusively, in ‘trans’ circles putting themselves into vulnerable situations with often older men who identify as trans (with mental health issues and openly expressed sexual fetishes), so WHO is causing the far higher rates of abuse of these young women?

“One in four transgender women who were victimized thought the incident was a hate crime compared to less than one in ten cisgender women.”
This statement is also interesting. They must have different definitions of hate crime in the US as in the UK, women are not included under hate crime law so cannot report a hate crime against them. These men with mental health issues and an apparently high prevalence of narcissistic traits were far more likely to think that they were victims of a hate crime than women. So were these even hate crimes? If you only think something is a hate crime, that is not necessarily the same as it being a hate crime. Yet another sly and misleading statement. And that’s before we get into the female socialisation and conditioning mentioned above where women routinely experience all sorts of abuse and harassment and don’t bother to say anything because it’s so horrendously common.

Headline summaries of this study seem to have missed the bigger picture - the abnormally high level of abuse suffered by (predominantly) young women (identifying as trans) who hang out fairly exclusively with older men openly expressing sexual fetishes. Are we surprised?

Truth has a way of slipping out despite their best efforts.

Totally agree @BundleBoogie extremely visible. And vocal.
Trans identifying men are not 'average women' howse- far from it

'What their vulnerabilities do NOT mean is that they get put in with women'

Exactly. It is really important that studies are done so that informed decision making is prioritised over emotionally driven decision making that might be based on misinformation.

When sloppiness becomes replicated as that sound bite has been, it is not allowing 'informed' decision making.

I noticed at least one other paper linked that a vague comparison was again made to increase the significance that people should give the study. It referred to a comparison between people with transgender identities and people without transgender identities and was footnoted with three reference points. The comparison was that people with transgender identities were at higher risk than those without transgender identities. More of an 'of course this group is more at risk' type sentence but footnoted. I couldn't actually see the relevance of the three reference points and that point the author made. Then again, I could not get access to one of the three mind you. But the three references were not papers comparing people with transgender identities to people without a transgender identity. They were important papers, but not comparative ones.

It was just one sentence and it was not really relevant to the conclusion of that paper. But it was there.

When I saw the topic of the link, I had wondered why the OP had linked it. Then I saw this one sentence. It is this accepted confirmation biased repetition that this group of people are more at risk, or at higher risk than women or men that is the issue. The paper didn't need that sentence. The information in the paper was important and didn't need to be supported with any comparative vague reference. But that repeated messaging is harmful. It really is supporting that 'victim' aspect. No wonder some people with transgender identities feel under attack when there is this pervasive messaging that doesn't seem to be supported by fact when analysed.

I don’t think there is any validity to the claim that men who identify as women are not ‘socially visible’.

They couldn’t be much more ‘socially visible’ if they tried.

It’s not ‘minimising sexual violence against trans people by weaponising unconfirmable data’

We are disputing the analysis and presentation of the data, not minimising it.

Stop trying to pretend that exposing the lies about trans people is detrimental to women.

Thats the key point.

Barbie Kardashian, Sarah Jane Baker, Katie Dolatowski, are all vulnerable, and the first two at least appear to have trauma histories.

So they may need more care in prison, separate facilities, etc.

What their vulnerabilities do NOT mean is that they get put in with women.

There seems to be confusion over which historical figure should be credited but I think the saying “there’s lies, damn lies and statistics” might apply in this instance.

As PPs who are very experienced in looking at studies above point out, the findings and analysis from this survey are highly questionable and are repeatedly being misrepresented and misapplied.

Crimes against women are known to be under reported and ignored by police on a significant scale. 1% of reported rapes even get as far as a charge.

By contrast we regularly see efforts to inflate reports of crime and violence against trans people. Within the reported 2630 hate crimes against trans people in 2020/21 are included stickers they don’t like, ‘misgendering’ and being refused service.

The facts should speak for themselves and I think they do - when they are separated from the lies.

What we DO know is that for the last number of years, 'trans' has been included as a statistic and 'trans' people have been encouraged to report report report so build up the stats which are 'included' in any 'studies', whereas with women, not only are they not considered worthy of recording as a statistic, they have to actually die and die below a certain age to even be counted in any 'studies'. And we know that most crimes, assaults, rapes aren't even reported so there is no way any study could even produce documented evidence in the first place.

Quite possibly you are right about the figure for male people Eresh.

Having a very quick look at the document referred to in the KMD law link, I also think that whoever wrote that content just threw in content that was not collected using the same methodology as the content the rest of the post refers to.

This is where they got the information and there are three references that they used listed on this document.

https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications/2019-02/Transgender_infographic_508_0.pdf

The information is absolutely right to be used to raise awareness, the issue needs to be addressed. However, the leveraging of the comparisons with women and men was only done to make appalling outcomes for this group look even worse, when the reality is likely to be very different if the same method of data collection was used for those groups.

Not to do a What about the Men, obvs, just pointing to the likelihood of the statistics being unreliable.

I think it’s probably a lot higher than 1 in 71 men too.

I noticed on the KMD law link that they use a comparative ratio of "one in five women and one in 71 men will be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes.'

I call bollocks for that 1 in 5 stat. I had a conversation with a group of women the other day and it quickly became clear that this is so much higher. All 6 of us had experienced what would be considered sexual assault, but none of us ever thought to report it. Because as women, we just wrote it off as being typical. Of course, these were not aggravated incidents and were touching, grabbing and inappropriate acts.

No one should be experiencing sexual abuse or assault. However, if statistics are going to be used to raise awareness of one group's experiences, it certainly doesn't support those statistics if women's experiences are dismissed like this.

What arguments are the transactivists making off the back of these analyses?

I think there is a women's UK prisoner study somehow that showed this. I will look too. If I remember correctly, female people (ie, including juvenile female prisoners) in the UK prison system had a much higher prevalence of being victims of serious crime and domestic abuse themselves.

The Williams Institute never point out the actual numbers involved in the press release. It is a PR exercise and it worked very very well influence-wise. The points from the press release have been used extensively to shape decision maker's perception.

We see the 'four times' soundbite used even here in the UK when I have not found any UK basis for the reference to 'four times'. So when I see 'four times' mentioned now, I assume it is from the Williams Institute information.

The limitations on that calculation should have always been made clear.

Here are places this sound bite of 'four times' has been used.

GenderGP has linked the press release that I posted on their site. From what I can find, the four times only refers to that Williams Institute press release.

Trans People at Four Times Greater Risk of Violence Than Cis People

https://www.gendergp.com/anti-trans-violence-on-the-rise/

" Trans people are more likely than cis people to be victims of a violent crime. Anti-LGBTQ+ hate crimes are also on the rise. This violence influences not only their mental and physical well-being but also when they decide to start gender-affirming healthcare.

Research indicates that trans people are at significantly greater risk of violence than their cis counterparts

A 2021 study published by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law found that trans people are four times more likely to experience violence and abuse compared to cis people. Around one in every four trans women who were victims of a violent crime believed it to be due to their gender identity. In comparison, only one in every ten cis women believed it to be due to their gender. Half of all victims of violent crimes did not report it to the police. "

Here is the Metro, earlier this year.

'A 2021 US-based Williams Institute study found that, in the year 2017-18, trans people are four times more likely than cis people to experience violence, including sexual assault and rape.'

https://archive.ph/Ceb9Z

Article by Ugla Stefanía Kristjönudóttir Jónsdóttir aka 'Owl' Fisher. A male who declares that he is a feminist

_

I looked into the williams institute some time ago. The press release is a very dishonest one as posters have already noted.

The 'four times' sound bite though keeps being used and it gets used here in the UK as well by those who seek to influence decision making. I will post those using it just this year in the UK in a different post.

Here is a quote that keeps appearing on these threads and in media:

”Transgender people are over four times more likely than cisgender people to experience violent victimization, including rape, sexual assault, and aggravated or simple assault”

It was from this press release that has the head line:

'Transgender people over four times more likely than cisgender people to be victims of violent crime.'

williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/

I have a few issues with this press release. I think it has been used widely and extensively since it was released. I believe this document discusses those crime statistics

escholarship.org/content/qt7c3704zg/qt7c3704zg.pdf?t=qqfomk&v=lg

I looked at the data behind this. It refers to 369 trans people vs 435 061 people who were not trans identified in a study. That is 0.0008 (0.08%) . That is not a population that you could draw many confident conclusions from. And it would be ridiculous to make the comparison.

What adds to the lack of trust you can put into this sound bite statement is when you think about this from the point of view that women around the world who admit they don’t bother to report their sexual assaults and rapes. Because they have no confidence that they will get justice AND not be vilified in the process.

What % of females actively reporting their attacks vs current trend of not bothering to report would decimate that 369 figure?

And that number cannot be accurately depicted in this point either;

Sure this 'maybe'. However, I believe the huge number of women telling us they don’t report.

This article is misrepresenting the reality.

However, this is the statement that keeps appearing.

”Transgender people are over four times more likely than cisgender people to experience violent victimization, including rape, sexual assault, and aggravated or simple assault”

Including! Notice it says ‘including’!

Not ”Trans people are 4 times more likely to experience violent attacks including rape and sexual assault.”

What was NOT included was a handy breakdown of what constituted the crimes against trans people were. What was the bar for a hate crime being committed for instance? Misogyny? Does that fit the definition that holds for transphobic hate crimes?

Based on 369 people, I am not going to delve so far into that national dataset to look for it. I don’t have the will. Maybe if someone wishes to prove their point, they could link to that data with the breakdown of the actual crimes reported for those 369 people.

“One in four transgender women who were victimized thought the incident was a hate crime compared to less than one in ten cisgender women.”

How many females being taught how to accurately assess the motivation against them as to whether it constituted a hate crime, or indeed using the very same frames of reference as trans people do but based on sexism, and then reanswering that same survey would again make that point meaningless? If there is no 'hate crime' for misogyny the comparison is meaningless?

Do the people writing these papers/press releases or using this to support their points understand the significance of what centuries of oppression of females has done on being able to accurately assess the motivation of crimes against our sex?

I am beginning to. The trans lobby groups are informing my learnings. Because of what they classify as ‘transphobic hate crimes’ when I look at what I have experienced as a female… wow! I sure have overlooked a huge amount of what I just waved away as crap from males.

And that the group who are trans could include many of those reporting abuse that includes misgendering and perceived micro-aggressions. Gosh, imagine if women reported all the hateful things said and done to them on a daily basis.
Crimes that cause harm and pain to anyone should be fully investigated and justice served.

But if a claim such as ”Trans people are 4 times more likely to experience violent attacks including rape and sexual assault.” is going to be made by any institution or poster, it needs to be based on some very robust data. And it isn't.

This. Also curious to see within these statistics how much of this violence is committed by other trans people.