Statistics & poll evidence archive thread

PROFESSOR ALICE SULLIVAN'S LETTER TO THE JUDICIAL OFFICE REGARDING KEMP'S MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE CRIME RATE FOR MALE PEOPLE WITH TRANSGENDER IDENTITIES

https://x.com/ProfAliceS/status/2000532626243756399?s=20

I have written to the Judicial Office for Scotland in relation to errors in the interpretation of evidence in the Sandie Peggie case.

To: Judicial Office for Scotland [email protected]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write in relation to the Judgment in the case of Peggie vs Fife Health Board and Upton.

While some of these points have already been discussed in the public domain, the judgment suggests a preference for a ‘skilled witness’ regarding research evidence. As a professor of sociology at UCL with many years of experience in the field of social statistics, I trust that I meet the criteria to be considered as a skilled witness.

Paragraph 1047 suggests some confusion on the part of Judge Kemp regarding the following publication: Dhejne, C., Lichtenstein, P., Boman, M., Johansson, A.L., Långström, N. and Landén, M., 2011. Long-term follow-up of transsexual persons undergoing sex reassignment surgery: cohort study in Sweden. PloS one, 6(2), p.e16885.

The judgment notes: ‘The following was stated “Transsexual individuals were at increased risk of being convicted for any crime or violent crime after sex reassignment (Table 2); this, however was only significant in the group who underwent sex reassignment before 1989.” ‘

However, this is sentence is irrelevant to the point at hand. The judge appears to have either misinterpreted the evidence or missed the point.

The paper states ‘regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6;95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males’. In other words, the paper finds that ‘male-to-females’ retained a male pattern of criminal convictions.

The judge’s misinterpretation of Dhjene et al, combined with his dismissal of Ministry of Justice data on the grounds that clicking on hyperlinks would have been required to gain access to the relevant documents, underpinned his conclusion in paragraph 1049 ‘In our view, having read all of the documents, there is very far from sufficient reliable evidence to establish as a fact that a trans woman who is legally and biologically male is a greater risk to any person assigned female at birth within a changing room environment at a workplace than another woman assigned female at birth’.

This conclusion is based in error. In addition, it misunderstands the burden of proof. It is well-established that males are far more likely to commit violent and sexual crime than females. In order to argue that this does not apply to a subset of males, one would need strong positive evidence of this point.

I would add some further evidence. The most recent data from His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS, 2025) further supports the view that males who identify as transwomen retain a male pattern of offending. Only around 4% of the prison population in England and Wales is female. The transgender prison population in 2025 (0.4% of prisoners) included over four times as many biological males (276) as females (63). If transwomen were counted as women, they would constitute 7.3% of women prisoners.

I hope this is helpful.

Yours faithfully,

Professor Alice Sullivan, UCL

US GALLUP ABOUT SPORTS, BIRTH SEX ON GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS

https://news.gallup.com/poll/691454/two-thirds-prefer-birth-sex-ids-athletics.aspx

"Roughly two-thirds of Americans support two separate policies prioritizing the birth sex of transgender people over their current gender identity. Sixty-nine percent of U.S. adults continue to believe that transgender athletes should only be allowed to play on sports teams that match their birth sex, and 66% of Americans say a person’s birth sex rather than gender identity should be listed on government documents such as passports or driver’s licenses."

and

"Between 2021 and now, Democrats’ and independents’ levels of support for transgender athletes to play on sports teams that align with their current gender identity have both fallen by 10 points (to 45% and 23%, respectively), while Republicans’ support has not changed significantly."

There is a csv file downloadable on this link .

A USA OPINION TRACKER

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/26/americans-have-grown-more-supportive-of-restrictions-for-trans-people-in-recent-years/

Americans have grown more supportive of restrictions for trans people in recent years

The survey also finds that more Americans support than oppose laws and policies that:

Require trans people to use public bathrooms that match their sex at birth, rather than the gender they identify with (49% favor or strongly favor, 26% oppose or strongly oppose)

Make it illegal for public school districts to teach about gender identity in elementary schools (47% favor or strongly favor, 34% oppose or strongly oppose)

Compared to previous years:

More Americans now say they favor or strongly favor laws and policies that:

Ban health care professionals from providing care related to gender transitions for minors (up 10 percentage points)

Require trans athletes to compete on teams that match their sex at birth (up 8 points)

Require trans people to use public bathrooms that match their sex at birth (up 8 points)

Make it illegal for public school districts to teach about gender identity in elementary schools (up 6 points)

At the same time, fewer Americans now express support for laws and policies that:

Protect trans people from discrimination (down 8 points since 2022)

Require health insurance companies to cover medical care for gender transitions (down 5 points)

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH STUDY BY MAYCOCK OF TRANSGENDER PRISONERS IN SCOTLAND

‘She Was Just Like A Lassie’: Analysing The Views of Cis-Women In Custody About Their Experiences of Living With Transgender Women In The Scottish Prison Estate

https://academic.oup.com/bjc/article/62/4/1000/6370239

Matthew Maycock, 14 September 2021

The latest official figures indicate a fall in the average number of women in custody between 2011–12 and 2016–17, followed by a relatively static female average prison population of under 400 women since 2016–17 (Scottish Government 2020). At the time of ethical approval for the study (May 2019), there were 379 women in custody in Scotland, equating to 4.6% of the prison population, located in five prisons2 across Scotland. In May 2019 there were 17 transgender people in custody.

There were 17 trans prisoners in Scottish prisons at the time of the study.

Some comments from the interviews with female prisoners about their time in prison with male prisoners:

She’s been caught having sex and stuff in here, and I think that’s wrong. Well, supposedly, she had stopped taking her medication for a bit and, supposedly, something had happened.

There’s a transgender [wo]man (Susan). He worked in the...my work party. His views were totally wrong. He wanted to be in this hall because he wanted to have sex with loads of lassies.

And it’s been like...aye. And it’s been like, well, wait a minute, you’ve still got that strength and whatever. You’re still acting like a man here. Like trying to get like authority over you.

She was never female before until she hit [name of prison] and then decided that she wanted to be a woman because she couldn’t handle it. I think she puts a lot of it on.

Several participants discussed transgender people who had transitioned in custody, but who had reverted to their birth gender following release. For example, Isla below outlines her acceptance of a transgender woman (Ruth) in her hall, reflecting on the hurt that this caused given the efforts she and other prisoners made to accept and welcome this person:

We treated that lassie (Ruth) as female. I treated that lassie with the greatest respect. And I always said that, what do you need? And then when Janice came back and told us that, after she got lib, it really kind of…it hurt. It hurt us, because we tried to help her, we tried to make her feel welcome. I felt personally she was a man wanting an easy escape from the male estate.

Ella shared similar experiences about different transgender people she had got to know while in custody. This for Ella resulted in a wider scepticism about the transitions of transgender people in custody:

The last one to get out, back living as a man. The one before that got out, back living as a man, while he was in the hall, was telling people, I’m stopping taking my medication because I can’t get a hard on. I’ve not a problem living with trans people, it’s living with people who are manipulating the system and pretending to be trans.

The study also mentioned these this paper by Maycock :

‘I want the male and the female wings. I don’t want a special trans wing for people.’: Transgender people in custody in Scotland’s views about transgender specific facilities within prisons

https://discovery.dundee.ac.uk/en/publications/i-want-the-male-and-the-female-wings-i-dont-want-a-special-trans-/

Matthew Maycock - 3 November 2020

Abstract
For a relatively small proportion of the wider prison population, transgender people in custody have been the focus of significant recent policy and media debate in Scotland and Internationally. This debate has taken a particular form following the opening of a wing of HMP Downview specifically to house transgender people in custody in England in March 2019. This unit is just one of the options for housing transgender people in English prisons — it is also possible that they are located in men’s or women’s prisons, based on individual risk assessment. Despite this focus, there have been no studies that have considered the views of transgender people in custody regarding HMP Downview and what this specific wing represents for the management of transgender people in custody. This constitutes a significant gap in what we know about transgender people’s views on how they want to be managed in custody, with reflections on HMP Downview facilitating insights into the views of a diverse, heterogeneous group of people in custody.

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

This quote below 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”

It was from this press release.

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

It refers to 369 trans people who identified their sex vs 435 061 people who were not trans identified in a study. There were 420 in total.

The numbers of members of each cohort
not transgender - 435,061
transgender man (TIF) - 181
transgender woman (TIM) - 188
prefer not to say - 51

The sample size was not mentioned at all in the press release!!

Just being generous and using the full transgender population of this survey, that equals 420/435061 =0.000965 x 100 = 0.09% is not a population that you could draw many confident conclusions from. And it would be ridiculous to make the comparison on such a small sample size.

Think about this from the point of view that women around the world 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 420 figure?

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

”About half of all violent victimizations were not reported to police. Transgender people were as likely as cisgender people to report violence to police.”

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

This article is misrepresenting the reality.

Then there is this claim:

”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?

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

If females were 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 they came back and reanswered that same survey, it suspect strongly that it will make that point meaningless? Is misogyny a ‘hate crime’ for instance?

Uses of this quote

-Statista have used this document.

https://www.statista.com/chart/27456/increased-likelihood-of-us-transgender-people-becoming-victims-of-a-crime/

And yet just a couple of examples of use in 2025 are:

-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.

-Politifact in the USA used this sound bite in the Sept 2025 article "Are trans people ‘statistically’ more prone to commit gun violence? Data shows a different picture

https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/sep/09/trans-people-mass-shootings-gun-violence/

They used in the section with the sub heading: Trans people are more likely to be victims, not perpetrators, of violence

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.

UK HATE CRIME INCREASES

The Guardian "Record rise in hate crimes against transgender people reported in England and Wales" Thu 5 Oct 2023

which includes this "Increase of 11% in year ending March 2023 may be due to comments in media and by politicians, says Home Office".

https://archive.ph/WtKLd

Which relates to this data (and a link was also posted - meaning two links to the very same data)

Hate crime, England and Wales, 2022 to 2023 second edition
Updated 2 November 2023

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2022-to-2023/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2022-to-2023

This above is the source for the 11% increase

"sexual orientation hate crimes fell by 6%, to 24,102 offences, while transgender hate crimes increased by 11%, to 4,732 offences"

and

"Transgender identity hate crimes rose by 11% (from 4,262 to 4,732) over the same period, the highest number since the time series began in the year ending March 2012. Transgender issues have been heavily discussed by politicians, the media and on social media over the last year, which may have led to an increase in these offences, or more awareness in the police in the identification and recording of these crimes."

Notice it is very open to what those hate crimes might be. Just (as has been pointed out by others) Hate crime is defined as ‘any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic.’

And also worth noting that the increase in raw numbers is 470.

Violence against the person is separated into a chart at figure 2.8.

Figure 2.8: Percentage of selected offences resulting in charge/summons, by hate crime strand, offences recorded in the year ending March 2023, England and Wales, 30 forces

The percentage there was rounded up to 2% (ie. less than 2%). This is compared to Race and Sexual orientation being 6% of the offences being for violence against the person. Religion was 5%. Disability was 1%.

This is the only attempt to break this data into violent crimes. Public order offences registered against transgender people was 3% and criminal damage and arson was also 3%.

This is good. Very little 'violence' was charged/summoned. This gets even clearer when you look at the definition for "violence against the person"
From this resource that explains this:

https://www.psni.police.uk/sites/default/files/2024-11/Police%20Recorded%20Crime%20User%20Guide.pdf

"Much of the violence against the person increase resulted from a widening of the offence coverage to include assaults with little or no physical injury and offences of harassment (again with no injury)."

However, lucky for us there is a very detailed listing of what is considered under this category on page 24 of that PDF. I think that it is very clear that 'Violence against the person' is not limited to physical violence at all.

-start-

VIOLENCE AGAINST THE PERSON
Violence against the person is grouped into five high-level categories – Homicide, Death or serious injury by
unlawful driving, Violence with injury, Violence without injury and Stalking and Harassment.
Homicide
1 Murder
4.1 Manslaughter
4.10 Corporate manslaughter
Where an organisation is deemed responsible for a person’s death. This offence differs from the basic
HOCR rule of recording based on the initial report to police and is only recorded once an inquest
concludes with a verdict of unlawful killing or the PPS authorise a charge (or direct that it is not in the
public interest to do so).
4.2 Infanticide
Applied to infants under 12 months killed by the mother while of disturbed mind.
Death or serious injury caused by unlawful driving
These offences differ from the basic HOCR rule of recording based on the initial report to police and are
only recorded once the investigation confirms the offence is made out, ie a person is charged or PPS
recommend prosecution.
4.4 Causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving
4.6 Causing death or serious injury by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs
4.8 Causing death or serious injury by careless or inconsiderate driving
4.9 Causing death or serious injury by driving: unlicensed drivers etc
37.1 Causing death by aggravated vehicle taking
Violence with injury
2 Attempted murder
4.3 Intentional destruction of viable unborn child
4.7 Causing or allowing death of a child or vulnerable person
5D Assault with intent to cause serious harm
Includes offences of grievous bodily harm (GBH) with intent and wounding with intent. These offences
are recorded where there is clear evidence of a deliberate attempt to inflict serious bodily harm regardless
of level of injury sustained.
5E Endangering life
This classification is additionally split within PSNI to provide a data series for explosives offences and
firearms/ammunition offences.
8N Assault with injury
This classification is further split:
Grievous bodily harm or Wounding - where injury may result in permanent disability; more than minor
permanent disfigurement; broken bones; fractured skull; compound fractures; substantial loss of
blood; internal injury; lengthy treatment or serious psychiatric injury (based on expert evidence); and
shock (when accompanied by expert psychological evidence)
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (AOABH) – injuries ranging from grazes, scratches and
reddening of the skin to simple broken nose or broken finger. Also includes non-visible injury causing
more than a passing moment of pain or discomfort which has an adverse impact on the victim.
Poisoning to aggrieve
Non-fatal strangulation - The Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland)
2022 created the offence of ‘Non-fatal strangulation’, recording commenced 26th June 2023.
8P Racially or religiously-aggravated assault with injury
The legislation behind these racially or religiously-aggravated offences does not exist within Northern
Ireland and therefore this classification does not apply. Records are instead classified to 8N Assault with
injury and are included in the racist and faith/religion hate crime strands.
8S Assault with injury on a constable
Where a police officer was the victim of GBH/wounding with intent, GBH, Wounding or AOABH in the
course of their duty.
8T Assault with injury on an emergency worker (other than a constable)
Within Northern Ireland these offences are classified to 8N Assault with injury (where the injury is minor)
and 105A Assault without injury (where no injury has been sustained).24Violence without injury
3A Conspiracy to murder
3B Threats to kill
Where an individual fears that the offender’s threat is real and may be carried out.
11A Cruelty to children/young persons
13 Child abduction
14 Procuring illegal abortion
36 Kidnapping
104 Assault without injury on a constable
Where, in the course of their duty, a police officer was the victim of an assault where no injury was
caused.
105A Assault without injury
Offences where, at the most, a feeling of touch or passing moment of pain is experienced by the victim.
Summary offences, closely associated with actual bodily harm (see classification 8N). Includes, amongst
other offences, common assault and aggravated assault. From 1 April 2003 only includes assaults
involving no injury, please note that this change was introduced a year earlier in England and Wales on
1 April 2002.
105B Racially or religiously-aggravated assault without injury
The legislation behind these racially or religiously-aggravated offences does not exist within Northern
Ireland and therefore this classification does not apply. Records are instead classified to 105A Assault
without injury and are included in the racist and faith/religion hate crime strands.
106 Modern slavery
Includes offences such as holding a person in slavery or servitude, requiring a person to perform forced
or compulsory labour and arranging/facilitating travel of another person with a view to exploitation.
Stalking and harassment
8L Harassment
Harassment offences are those incidents where no other substantive notifiable offence exists, but when
looked at as a course of conduct are likely to cause fear, alarm or distress. Within Northern Ireland this
classification is further split into harassment and intimidation offences.
8M Racially or religiously-aggravated harassment
The legislation behind these racially or religiously-aggravated offences does not exist within Northern
Ireland and therefore this classification does not apply. Records are instead classified to 105A Assault
without injury and are included in the racist and faith/religion hate crime strands.
8Q Stalking
Stalking legislation was introduced in Northern Ireland on 27th April 2022, through the Protection from
Stalking Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. Offences of “stalking” and of “threatening and abusive behaviour”
are recorded from this date.
8R Malicious communications
The recording of malicious communications offences started for the first time in Northern Ireland from 1st April 2017. This classification also includes offences relating to 'revenge porn'; new legislation on
disclosing private sexual photographs and film with intent to cause distress was introduced in June 2016.
8U Controlling or coercive behaviour
The Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (NI) 2021 introduced the “domestic abuse offence” within
Northern Ireland on 21st February 2022, enabling the recording of abusive behaviour occurring on two or
more occasions against an intimate partner, former partner or close family member, ie within the definition
of domestic abuse used in Northern Ireland and where abusive behaviour includes controlling or coercive
behaviour, psychological abuse, emotional abuse, financial abuse and economic abuse.
-end-

The following is a link to the ONS that lists the above for all of UK but without the extra detail:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/methodologies/userguidetocrimestatisticsforenglandandwales#appendix-1-recorded-crime-list

So, as suspected, a male person can report his spouse or ex- spouse for domestic abuse (ie. not accepting that transition, and using the correct sex pronouns) and this would also be coded as a 'hate crime - violence against the person.'

Tweets that someone doesn't like about themselves fall under malicious communication and can be recorded as a 'hate crime- violence against the person'.

It always pays to look in the data that is being posted to check exactly what it says and doesn't say.

If someone says directly or implies or infers anything about 'violent' hate crimes, always check the source, and drill down to any data given.

Just a reminder though....

Please look back on the Break it down for me? original thread for many more links to studies and papers....

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3145470-Break-it-down-for-me?page=1

And some will inevitably pop up on the 2nd Break it down thread too.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5445899-break-it-down-for-me-2-general-break-it-down-archive-thread?reply=148603352

UK SURVEY ON UNDERSTANDING OF TRANSGENDER TERMS 2023

Results from a Murray Blackburn MacKenzie survey showed that when asked the questions, the UK public are confused by who the terms trans woman and transgender woman refer to.

Overall 65% of people believed Transgender Woman was a male at birth (17% thought female & 18% was not sure) and 60% believed that trans woman (21% thought female & 19% was not sure) was a male at birth.

Here is some commentary from MBM.

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2023/08/07/clarity-matters-how-placating-lobbyists-obscures-public-understanding-of-sex-and-gender/

Looking at how the results break down further by sub-groups of the population, the patterns become messier and more different for the two terms. The results for these smaller sub-groups need to be treated with some caution, but are worth attention (some columns below do not sum to 100% due to rounding).

Both sexes were more likely to understand ‘transgender woman’ correctly, but the difference in results between the terms was very small for women. For men, the understanding of ‘transgender woman’ was much higher, and they were also much less likely to misunderstand that term, than ‘trans woman’.

Neither income nor level of educational qualification were simple predictors of accurate understanding. However, those with no or the most basic level of qualifications were most likely to have difficulty with this language, with ‘trans woman’ causing most confusion. Its meaning was clear only to just over half (54%) of that group.

For both terms, those with Level 4+ (HE) qualifications did less well than at least one of the Level 3 (A-level equivalent) or Level 2 (GCSE-equivalent at higher grades) groups: see here for level definitions

The largest variation was by region. The lowest accurate response rate of any group was well under half (43%), in London, for ‘trans woman’; over one-third of this group (35%) gave the wrong answer. This may possibly be connected to higher numbers who have English as a second language (see Biggs, 2023 for a similar hypothesis in relation to the gender identity question in the 2021 England and Wales census).

This deserves further consideration, alongside the results for the group with no or limited qualifications, as a likely plain English issue. Women with lower levels of qualifications or more limited language skills will already tend to be more socially and economically disadvantaged: their understanding of what they are being told about the operation of services and spaces appears especially likely to be affected by using this language.

And

Strikingly, of those aged 25-34, barely half gave the correct response, for both terms. Well over one-quarter (29%) of that group thought a ‘trans woman’ described someone who had been registered female/a girl at birth. As this effect was seen for both terms, separately sampled, it seems likely to be a real population effect. It may reflect more of the 25-34 respondents being uncomfortable with the idea sex is registered rather than ‘assigned’ at birth, or greater resistance to considering a person’s sex at birth entirely separately from their identity: but that would not immediately explain why the youngest age group records substantially better understanding of these terms than those aged 25-34. There is scope for further testing to understand what might explain this effect.

The link to the spreadsheet is in the article.

Another point of interest is that in describing Transgender woman accurately, the conservative voters (68.41%) were more accurate than the Labour (61.66%) and LD (64.49%)voters. And Transwoman was accurately described by conservative voters (63.03%), labour (64.36%) and LD (55.7%).

NZ POLLING FROM 2023

newsroom.co.nz/2023/11/03/race-relations-among-most-divisive-issues-in-election-poll/

“A report from pollsters Talbot Mills, seeking to understand the degree to which New Zealand has become more politically polarised, shows people broadly agree on Covid-19 measures and gun laws but are divided over or opposed to policies for Māori and transgender people.”

And

“The least favoured policy was allowing transgender women to compete in women’s sport – just 14 percent supported it versus 60 percent who opposed.”

and

“Half of respondents opposed allowing transgender women (described as “biological males who identify as women” in the poll questions) to use women’s bathrooms, with 21 percent supporting the move.”

National Centre for Social Research British social attitudes survey

21 Sept 2023

"Just 30% think someone should be able to have the sex on their birth certificate altered if they want, down from 53% in 2019."

natcen.ac.uk/publications/bsa-40-liberalisation-attitudes

(posted on Break it down for me thread by @Bosky)

2023 CANADA POLLING

This from Canada (as posted by @TheInebriati on the Break it down for me thread)

''Poll reveals Canadian trans policies that are out of step with public opinion''

''Canadians favour equality for trans people, but generally don't believe in gender self-identification, survey shows''

35 per cent agreed...that “anyone who wishes can identify as a woman.”
(34 per cent) sided with the notion that women are only those “who were born with female genitalia.”

18 per cent were comfortable with the idea of men legally becoming women, but only if they changed their genitalia through surgery.

(52 per cent) are not on board with a recent spate of Canadian legal reforms upholding the principle of gender self-ID

a clear majority of Canadians opposed to the adoption of “gender neutral” terminology [67 per cent]

66 per cent disagreed with the statement “everyone should put their pronouns in their social media profiles.”

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/angus-reid-poll-transgender-policies-canada

AUSTRALIAN STUDY ON TRANSGENDER ATHLETES IN FEMALE SPORTS & ON PRONOUN USAGE

Especially for those who continue to believe that the majority of the world's population are fully supportive of the demands from trans people. Rather than that many of the world's population is supportive of some of the demands of trans people but have limits. 50,000 Australians filled in this survey.

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/all-the-questions-in-one-place-from-great-aussie-debate/news-story/ca8ab531382816ec97a4151b9088fab7

18. Should transgender athletes be allowed to compete in women’s sport?
No = 82.6%
It depends on the sport = 8.2%
I don’t know = 4.9%
Trans women are women = 4.2%

40. Do you share your gender pronouns in your email signature or in social media profiles?
No = 48.2%
No, but respect others’ pronouns = 28.2%
No, it is too confusing = 11.2%
Yes, but I don’t care what others do = 5.3%
Yes, and I appreciate when others do = 4.9%
Prefer not to say = 1.7%
My workplace doesn’t allow it = 0.5%

There was also a Sex Matters poll done within days of the YouGov tracker. These are the results of it compared to in the past too. Just pulling them together, the Sex Matters (2533 adults polled) results were often more supportive than the YouGov results (2078 adults polled).

https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/SexMatters_Gender_241219_ZMwbM2T.pdf

In the following questions a transgender woman is someone who was biologically male at birth, but now identifies as a woman. A transgender man is someone who was biologically female at birth, but now identifies as a man.

Do you think transgender women should or should not be allowed to…
Take part in women's sporting events?2018 in italics, 2022 in [brackets vs 2024 SM (YG 2024)
Should be allowed 27 [16] 11%SM 2018 - 2024 SM this is decrease by 16% (YG 12%)
Should not be allowed 48 [61] 74%SM 2018 - 2024 SM this is increase by 26% (YG 74%)
Don't know 25 [22] 15%SM. 2018 - 2024 this is SM decrease by 10% (YG 14%)

Use women's changing rooms? 2022 in brackets vs 2024
Should be allowed 42 [34] 27%SM. 2018 - 2024SM this is decrease by 15% (YG 25%)*
Should not be allowed 33 [43] 56%SM. 2018 - 2024SM this is increase by 23% (YG 58%)
Don't know 25 [23] 17%SM. 2018 - 2024 SM this is decrease by 8% (YG 17%)*
Use women's toilets? 2022 in brackets vs 2024
Should be allowed 46 [38] 33%SM. 2018 - 2024 SMthis is decrease by 13% (YG 29%)
Should not be allowed 30 [41] 51%SM. 2018 - 2024SM this is increase by 20% (YG 55%)
Don't know 23 [21] 16%SM. 2018 - 2024 SM this is decrease by 7% (YG 16%)

Use women's refuges? 2022 in brackets vs 2024
Should be allowed 47 [39] 31%SM. 2018 - 2024 SM this is decrease by 16% (YG 29%)
Should not be allowed 27 [36] 47%SM. 2018 - 2024 SM this is increase by 20% (YG 52%)
Don't know 26 [25] 22%SM. 2018 - 2024 this is decrease SM by 4% (YG 20%)

And the specific non surgical question from 2020:

Do you think a transgender woman who has not had gender reassignment surgery should or should not be allowed to...
Use women's changing rooms? 2020 in italics, 2022 in [brackets] vs 2024SM (YG 2024)
Should be allowed 26 [25] 20%SM. 2020 - 2024SM this is decrease by 6% (YG 19%)
Should not be allowed 46 [48] 62%SM. 2020 - 2024 SM this is increase by 16% (YG 63%)
Don't know 28 [27] 18%SM. 2020 - 2024 SM this is decrease by 10% (YG 18%)

Use women's toilets?
Should be allowed 31 [29] 26%SM. 2020 - 2024 SM this is decrease by 5% (YG 23%)
Should not be allowed 41 [46] 58%SM. 2020 - 2024 SM this is increase by 17% (YG 60%)
Don't know 27 [25] 16%SM. 2020 - 2024 SM this is decrease by 11% (YG 18%)

YOUGOV UK TRACKER COMPARISONS

The following is the data from UK trackers from 2018 - 2024 tracking public opinion as part of their series of 'Where does the British public stand on transgender rights'. 2018 results included where they are available.

Here are some of the results that relate to the needs for female people to have single sex provisions:

In the following questions a transgender woman is someone who was biologically male at birth, but now identifies as a woman. A transgender man is someone who was biologically female at birth, but now identifies as a man.

Do you think transgender women should or should not be allowed to…
Take part in women's sporting events?2018 in italics, 2022 in [brackets vs 2024

Should be allowed 27 [16] 12% 2018 - 2024 this is decrease by 15%
Should not be allowed 48 [61] 74% 2018 - 2024 this is increase by 26%
Don't know 25 [22] 14%. 2018 - 2024 this is decrease by 11%

Use women's changing rooms? 2022 in brackets vs 2024
Should be allowed 42 [34] 25%. 2018 - 2024* this is decrease by 17%
Should not be allowed 33 [43] 58%. 2018 - 2024 this is increase by 25%
Don't know 25 [23] 17%. 2018 - 2024 *this is decrease by 8%

Use women's toilets? 2022 in brackets vs 2024
Should be allowed 46 [38] 33%. 2018 - 2024 this is decrease by 13%
Should not be allowed 30 [41] 51%. 2018 - 2024* *this is increase by 20%
Don't know 23 [21] 16%. 2018 - 2024 this is decrease by 7%

Use women's refuges? 2022 in brackets vs 2024
Should be allowed 47 [39] 29%. 2018 - 2024 this is decrease by 18%
Should not be allowed 27 [36] 55%. 2018 - 2024 this is increase by 28%
Don't know 26 [25] 16%. 2018 - 2024 this is decrease by 10%

No surgery question was asked in 2018

And the specific non surgical question from 2020:

Do you think a transgender woman who has not had gender reassignment surgery should or should not be allowed to...
Use women's changing rooms? 2020 in italics, 2022 in [brackets] vs 2024
Should be allowed 26 [25] 19%. 2020 - 2024 this is decrease by 7%
Should not be allowed 46 [48] 63%. 2020 - 2024* *this is increase by 17%
Don't know 28 [27] 18%. 2020 - 2024 this is decrease by 10%

Use women's toilets?
Should be allowed 31 [29] 23%. 2020 - 2024* *this is decrease by 8%
Should not be allowed 41 [46] 60%. 2020 - 2024 this is increase by 19%
Don't know 27 [25] 18%. 2020 - 2024 this is decrease by 9%

And finally:

This question was also not asked in 2018

Do you believe that allowing transgender women to use spaces reserved for women, such as women's toilets or changing rooms, does or does not present a genuine risk of harm to women? 2020 in italics, 2022 in [brackets] vs 2024
Does not present a genuine risk of harm 39 [32] 25%. 2020 - 2024 this is decrease by 14%
Does present a genuine risk of harm 32 [39] 55%. 2020 - 2024 this is increase by 23%
Don't know 29 [29] 20%. 2020 - 2024 this is decrease by 9%

d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Transgender_data_2018.pdf

https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Transgender_data_2020.pdf

https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Internal_TransgenderIssues_220720_final_extraXbreak_FINAL.pdf

https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/YouGov_-_Transgender_study_2024.pdf