Aren't transpeople still a tiny minority?

Over about fifteen years, I've noticed growing awareness and concern about transpeople. This may be my age and simply a case of when people I knew started to transition.
What I'm wondering is whether there are statistics further to the last census on how many people are transitioning or have transitioned. This is because I'm pretty sure that men are still a bigger threat to women's safety than transgender (m-f) women are. I'm not saying that no transwoman poses a risk to women, I'm querying whether, statistically, I'm better off crossing the road to avoid a cisgender man or a transgender woman (if, hypothetically, one were on each side of the road).

No, they have in many cases been taught in school that humans have a gender identity and that if they question their gender they may well be trans as "cis" people don't do that.

Believing what you are taught and introspecting on it and feeling that it applies to you does not make one deluded. It may make one susceptible to manipulation, credulous, vulnerable....which is possibly why so many are autistic, in which cognitive flexibility is a core difficulty.

@BettyBooper I would like people to change the rhetoric.

I would like people on here to stop mocking transpeople with the line "stunning and brave" or suggesting that any person who loves and defends a trans person expects them to be "fawned over " whilst loudly declaring their family member is a man and plopping "he" as an entire post. It's just not constructive. I am not asking you to respect someone's pronouns, but surely you can see an entire post that just says the word "he" in response to me explaining a viewpoint is just inflammatory and unnecessary?

I would like people to stop making out that every transperson is perverted, fetishistic or mentally ill. I would like to stop the hyperbole around fringe trans people like Isla Bryson.

I would like people to acknowledge that trans people are heterogeneous like other groups. If anything, perhaps the largest subgroup especially among young adult trans women is autistic and rather vulnerable.

I would like people to say "look, we appreciate that most trans women are just trying to live their lives, but it's important to acknowledge that ordinary women have rights that clash and we cannot validate trans people simply by allowing access to female spaces and awards. It should never have been on the table and the lobbying didn't consider the needs or rights of natal women. There are women who will then be excluded, including some religious women, those who have a history of trauma, and so on. So it doesn't work for us.

We can also see it doesn't work for you to be forced into a male toilet or a male hospital ward when you are sick and vulnerable.

Let's work together on solutions that enable privacy and dignity for ALL".

It is true though that everyone who actually thinks they are the opposite sex to that which they are is suffering from a delusion - often one encouraged by others, and it is you who needs to do the hard work of campaigning for third spaces for your child.

@BettyBooper I would like people to change the rhetoric.

I would like people on here to stop mocking transpeople with the line "stunning and brave" or suggesting that any person who loves and defends a trans person expects them to be "fawned over " whilst loudly declaring their family member is a man and plopping "he" as an entire post. It's just not constructive. I am not asking you to respect someone's pronouns, but surely you can see an entire post that just says the word "he" in response to me explaining a viewpoint is just inflammatory and unnecessary?

I would like people to stop making out that every transperson is perverted, fetishistic or mentally ill. I would like to stop the hyperbole around fringe trans people like Isla Bryson.

I would like people to acknowledge that trans people are heterogeneous like other groups. If anything, perhaps the largest subgroup especially among young adult trans women is autistic and rather vulnerable.

I would like people to say "look, we appreciate that most trans women are just trying to live their lives, but it's important to acknowledge that ordinary women have rights that clash and we cannot validate trans people simply by allowing access to female spaces and awards. It should never have been on the table and the lobbying didn't consider the needs or rights of natal women. There are women who will then be excluded, including some religious women, those who have a history of trauma, and so on. So it doesn't work for us.

We can also see it doesn't work for you to be forced into a male toilet or a male hospital ward when you are sick and vulnerable.

Let's work together on solutions that enable privacy and dignity for ALL".

It certainly suggests very strongly that they are a long way away from being as safe to be around as the "women" they claim to be.

We don't have to believe trans women are more likely than other men to be a risk to women before we can justify excluding them as we do those other men (although as above, if you widen the definition of harm beyond the physical and consider the social, emotional and economic harms to women of sexism, the sexism that trans identities embody starts to look very problematic for women especially). To justify excluding them as we do other men, we just have to believe they are more likely to inflict sex-based harms on women than women.

Because despite the unerring tendency to assume men are the reference point, actually the reference point is women. The purpose of single sex spaces isn't to put the cutoff for women's safety just below the risk posed by the average man, it's to put it above the risk posed by the average woman. Not "are these men legitimately less dangerous than other men" but "are these men legitimately no more dangerous than women?". Which they manifestly are not.

That brings me to the frequency fallacy. The comparator here is not "all men", it's "me who have privileged acess to women". If you have 100 men, only 10 of whom (you don't know which) are dangerous and only 1 of whom is allowed in women-only spaces, the one is the woman-only space may only have a 10% chance of being the bad-un but he is the only one who is given an opportunity to harm a woman in a woman only space, and therefore is an increased risk not because his trans status (if you chose to assume the stats are wrong) makes him more likely to be a danger than other men, but because his trans status gives him access other men do not have.

But taking a step back, the real point isn't even whether trans identifying men in particular pose a significantly higher or lower risk than the average man. Because regardless of whether trans women pose more or less of a risk to women than non-trans-identifying men, gay men, sappy men, macho men, vegan men, ginger men or any other group of men you want to arbitrarily pick, they still have no more claim whatsoever to women's spaces than any other man, because outside their own heads in objective reality they are no closer to being women than any other men.

I am fully familiar with those cases. And Maria McLaughlin vs Tara Wolff. And Keira Bell. Ritchie Herron. Glinner. Veronica Ivy. Laurel Hubbard. WORIADS. I know about all of it. I've been on FWR a decade.

I see many many people dismissing people like my trans daughter, calling her "he" and reminding me she is a man who is either a pervert, a fetishist or mentally ill, or a person who expects to be fawned over, I see "stunning and brave" used as hilarious shorthand at least once on every trans-related thread. I see people saying men should budge up in the gents which sounds logical except it doesn't enable privacy and dignity FOR ALL.

So whilst some on FWR may be arguing for 3rd spaces I don't see that much reflected. I see get out of women's spaces and stats on sexual deviance, and the same "terf is a slur" site with 10 -5 year old tweets on every thread.

Which is all fair enough but don't then pretend that FWR is championing 3rd spaces. It doesn't have to, but don't then pretend that is the main advocacy on here.

I am fully familiar with those cases. And Maria McLaughlin vs Tara Wolff. And Keira Bell. Ritchie Herron. Glinner. Veronica Ivy. Laurel Hubbard. WORIADS. I know about all of it. I've been on FWR a decade.

I see many many people dismissing people like my trans daughter, calling her "he" and reminding me she is a man who is either a pervert, a fetishist or mentally ill, or a person who expects to be fawned over, I see "stunning and brave" used as hilarious shorthand at least once on every trans-related thread. I see people saying men should budge up in the gents which sounds logical except it doesn't enable privacy and dignity FOR ALL.

So whilst some on FWR may be arguing for 3rd spaces I don't see that much reflected. I see get out of women's spaces and stats on sexual deviance, and the same "terf is a slur" site with 10 -5 year old tweets on every thread.

Which is all fair enough but don't then pretend that FWR is championing 3rd spaces. It doesn't have to, but don't then pretend that is the main advocacy on here.

The point of the question was whether or not it is a minority issue - not a rehashing of the trans v women debate.

And yes I think that we may need to reconsider how we think about risk and how best to allocate money towards that. For example, a lot of the issues raised to do with things like house burglaries etc - realistically by now the met does think it's a non issue a) because it's pretty rare; b) they dont investigate them. In practice, yes people shut their doors in London but actually you are very unlikely to get burgled in your own home ( it is much cheaper and more effective to nick your phone - the profession of house burglars has sort of died out - the most people do is nick your parcels from outside your house - and if you are nothing will happen to you, same with rape or even shop lifting. All those things are pretty much legal now and some of them has also kind of died out. We worry about them because of historical memory rather than reality.

We continue to perceive certain risks due to habit and also fund things as much out of habit as actual risk.

We also tend to worry about things in the news rather than actual risk. It's not scaremongering - it's a harsh look at risk, perceived risk and actual tackling/management of those risks.

There are some potential interpretation issues with this.

We are comparing a group of 200 transwomen with a group of 10s of 1000s of men. If we get 50 more sex offenders in the trans group it will have a dramatic impact on the percentage of sex offenders in the trans group. If the same happens with the male group, it will scarcely change the percentage. For this reason, It is not viable to compare percentages with such widely differing bases.

Also we need to understand that the numbers relating to people in custody simply show us who is being caught and convicted. They don’t necessarily give us a true picture of who is more likely to commit a sexual offense. Another way to look a this would be be to calculate the proportion of transwoman sex offenders as a percentage of the overall transwoman population but I don’t think we have that figure.

We need to remember that these figures don’t tell us anything about who offended but wasn’t caught or anyone who received non-custodial sentences.

I am fully familiar with those cases. And Maria McLaughlin vs Tara Wolff. And Keira Bell. Ritchie Herron. Glinner. Veronica Ivy. Laurel Hubbard. WORIADS. I know about all of it. I've been on FWR a decade.

I see many many people dismissing people like my trans daughter, calling her "he" and reminding me she is a man who is either a pervert, a fetishist or mentally ill, or a person who expects to be fawned over, I see "stunning and brave" used as hilarious shorthand at least once on every trans-related thread. I see people saying men should budge up in the gents which sounds logical except it doesn't enable privacy and dignity FOR ALL.

So whilst some on FWR may be arguing for 3rd spaces I don't see that much reflected. I see get out of women's spaces and stats on sexual deviance, and the same "terf is a slur" site with 10 -5 year old tweets on every thread.

Which is all fair enough but don't then pretend that FWR is championing 3rd spaces. It doesn't have to, but don't then pretend that is the main advocacy on here.

I agree anbout that prison data and it annoys me when people use this data for this purpose - the high percentage of trans prisoners being sex offenders could reflect lower offending rates for other crimes.

However, the census data showed quite clearly that the proportion of men identifying as trans who were incarcerated for sex offences at the time of the census was several times higher than that for other men. We also see from court reports that trans sex offenders are often given more lenient sentences because of their trans status. And we know that the census question overestimated the number of trans people. So the proportion of men who identify as trans who are sex offenders is even higher than the census indicated.

I am fully familiar with those cases. And Maria McLaughlin vs Tara Wolff. And Keira Bell. Ritchie Herron. Glinner. Veronica Ivy. Laurel Hubbard. WORIADS. I know about all of it. I've been on FWR a decade.

I see many many people dismissing people like my trans daughter, calling her "he" and reminding me she is a man who is either a pervert, a fetishist or mentally ill, or a person who expects to be fawned over, I see "stunning and brave" used as hilarious shorthand at least once on every trans-related thread. I see people saying men should budge up in the gents which sounds logical except it doesn't enable privacy and dignity FOR ALL.

So whilst some on FWR may be arguing for 3rd spaces I don't see that much reflected. I see get out of women's spaces and stats on sexual deviance, and the same "terf is a slur" site with 10 -5 year old tweets on every thread.

Which is all fair enough but don't then pretend that FWR is championing 3rd spaces. It doesn't have to, but don't then pretend that is the main advocacy on here.

I wasn’t trying to suggest anything apart from the potential possible misinterpretations of the data. For example the percentage of transwomen prisoners who are sex offenders is very high but we cannot infer that this means that transwomen are more likely to be sex offenders than men. It may well be true but it may be well not be. We cannot tell.

I am fully familiar with those cases. And Maria McLaughlin vs Tara Wolff. And Keira Bell. Ritchie Herron. Glinner. Veronica Ivy. Laurel Hubbard. WORIADS. I know about all of it. I've been on FWR a decade.

I see many many people dismissing people like my trans daughter, calling her "he" and reminding me she is a man who is either a pervert, a fetishist or mentally ill, or a person who expects to be fawned over, I see "stunning and brave" used as hilarious shorthand at least once on every trans-related thread. I see people saying men should budge up in the gents which sounds logical except it doesn't enable privacy and dignity FOR ALL.

So whilst some on FWR may be arguing for 3rd spaces I don't see that much reflected. I see get out of women's spaces and stats on sexual deviance, and the same "terf is a slur" site with 10 -5 year old tweets on every thread.

Which is all fair enough but don't then pretend that FWR is championing 3rd spaces. It doesn't have to, but don't then pretend that is the main advocacy on here.

I am fully familiar with those cases. And Maria McLaughlin vs Tara Wolff. And Keira Bell. Ritchie Herron. Glinner. Veronica Ivy. Laurel Hubbard. WORIADS. I know about all of it. I've been on FWR a decade.

I see many many people dismissing people like my trans daughter, calling her "he" and reminding me she is a man who is either a pervert, a fetishist or mentally ill, or a person who expects to be fawned over, I see "stunning and brave" used as hilarious shorthand at least once on every trans-related thread. I see people saying men should budge up in the gents which sounds logical except it doesn't enable privacy and dignity FOR ALL.

So whilst some on FWR may be arguing for 3rd spaces I don't see that much reflected. I see get out of women's spaces and stats on sexual deviance, and the same "terf is a slur" site with 10 -5 year old tweets on every thread.

Which is all fair enough but don't then pretend that FWR is championing 3rd spaces. It doesn't have to, but don't then pretend that is the main advocacy on here.

I wasn’t trying to suggest anything apart from the potential possible misinterpretations of the data. For example the percentage of transwomen prisoners who are sex offenders is very high but we cannot infer that this means that transwomen are more likely to be sex offenders than men. It may well be true but it may be well not be. We cannot tell.

Did you completely miss the Sandie Peggy case? Darlington nurses? Edinburgh rape service?

Noone here is against 3rd spaces! It's the TRAs who won't accept it as an option.

Why do you think FWS went to the Supreme Court? It wasn't because they hated trans people. It was because the TRAs were insisting that trans identifying males should be allowed in women's spaces.

You are arguing with the people who have been pushing for what you are suggesting for over a decade.

The point of the question was whether or not it is a minority issue - not a rehashing of the trans v women debate.

And yes I think that we may need to reconsider how we think about risk and how best to allocate money towards that. For example, a lot of the issues raised to do with things like house burglaries etc - realistically by now the met does think it's a non issue a) because it's pretty rare; b) they dont investigate them. In practice, yes people shut their doors in London but actually you are very unlikely to get burgled in your own home ( it is much cheaper and more effective to nick your phone - the profession of house burglars has sort of died out - the most people do is nick your parcels from outside your house - and if you are nothing will happen to you, same with rape or even shop lifting. All those things are pretty much legal now and some of them has also kind of died out. We worry about them because of historical memory rather than reality.

We continue to perceive certain risks due to habit and also fund things as much out of habit as actual risk.

We also tend to worry about things in the news rather than actual risk. It's not scaremongering - it's a harsh look at risk, perceived risk and actual tackling/management of those risks.