From stonewall report - 51% of transpeople are disabled

[Vicxy]

Stonewall did not think this reponse worthy of being involved in the 'key findings' part for some odd reason, as its a huge discrepancy with the non-trans community.

Autistic people are much more likely to view the 'rules' of femininity and masculinity as absolute

Nice bit of autsplaining there. I’ve found as an actually autistic person that the complete opposite is more likely to be the case within my community, but by all means feel free to spout this rubbish as fact...

Where I believe the high number of trans autistics to come from is their vulnerability and persuadability to fit into neurotypical defined labels of masculine and feminine. When you speak to actually autistics many of us do not conform to either masculine or feminine but our feeling of being “other” is being manipulated by the trans community - in the same way the happy clappies indoctrinate those who have just lost a loved one by playing on their vulnerability and desire to belong, the trans community are indoctrinating people desperate to belong somewhere. The current idea that they are outcasts too makes them seem very welcoming and when you’re made to doubt everything about your own existence that’s a very attractive proposition.

There are concerns among many actually autistic feminists (as highly gated on a post here somewhere) about the appropriation of autism by the trans community and using our vulnerability against us. Come to the trans-side they have cookies.

As for the high rate of disability & trans, were there not serious errors in both recording data and gathering participants for the survey?

This is a slight derail, but to answer Vicxy on the previous page, and to allay any concerns around population surveys based on "small numbers" relative to the population, I have decided to do another post as this is important.

There is quite a bit of maths involved (for those who enjoy maths, this question and answers are relevant: math.stackexchange.com/questions/926478/how-does-accuracy-of-a-survey-depend-on-sample-size-and-population-size)

In particular, note the second answer which has less maths.

Generally speaking, the population size doesn't matter, the crucial factor is that the sample size is at least 1000. You get very diminishing returns for sample sizes larger than 1000, and good surveys are extremely expensive to conduct. I've worked on a number of surveys where I was doing population estimates, the survey was not face-to-face, and every additional person added to the sample size was a cost of around 10-20 pounds. This means that an extra 1000 people adds around 10,000 to 20,000 to the cost of collecting the data. This may not sound much, but when one is trying not to cut any corners with the survey (each question added can be another 500-2000 pounds, depending on the type of question as duration of answering the survey increases the costs), plus all the cognitive and field testing required where people are paid for their time and cognitive interviews require the survey people to sit with the people doing the cognitive interview and ask them questions about how they answer each question (and write a report with quotes, making recommendations for changing the original survey), you can see how costs start spiralling.

So organisations tend to go for the 1000 sample size. This may be adjusted upwards if we want small subpopulation groups to have accurate estimates made as well. A sample size of 1000 may increase to 1200 or 1500 so that the over-sampling of small groups does not have a negative effect on the overall population estimates ( we don't want to under-sample some groups to compensate for over-sampling others).

This is much more detail than I originally wanted to post. I am posting in solidarity with government departments who tend to use sample sizes around 1000 (because costs are always important for government departments as it is so difficult to get funding for surveys, as this requires additional funding over the normal departmental costs). Please trust the results of government surveys with this type of sample size.

I am autistic and have throughout my life dreamed about being the opposite sex.
Here is my theory as to why transgenderism is linked to autism.

1. gender socialisation heavily affects the presentation of autism - girls often obscure their difficulties.
2. Autistic people have heightened sensory capabilities which makes them hyper-aware of their bodies, causing discomfort.
3. Autistic people are often ostracised by their peers so transitioning seems like the ideal way to "become a different person" and escape their self-loathing.
4. Autistic people are often forever trying to learn the rules of how to behave and how to present themselves so may take gendered expectations to extreme and "perform" gender.

Should add I'm not a researcher and this is not peer reviewed it is my theory. But there you have it.

also identifying as being autistic/having a mental health problem is seen as very trendy in social justice warrior circles in order to appear more "woke" and gain an advantage in the oppression olympics.

AutisticAppropriation & apathyisland your posts are so much more thoughtful and enlightening than any of the drivelling 'research' conducted by stonewall etc. Thank you.

And IWearPurple really useful posts.

"Where I believe the high number of trans autistics to come from is their vulnerability and persuadability to fit into neurotypical defined labels of masculine and feminine. When you speak to actually autistics many of us do not conform to either masculine or feminine but our feeling of being “other” is being manipulated by the trans community - in the same way the happy clappies indoctrinate those who have just lost a loved one by playing on their vulnerability and desire to belong, the trans community are indoctrinating people desperate to belong somewhere. The current idea that they are outcasts too makes them seem very welcoming and when you’re made to doubt everything about your own existence that’s a very attractive proposition."

Yy this is my interpretation too.

Also agree with your list apathy, especially this bit...
"Autistic people are often forever trying to learn the rules of how to behave and how to present themselves so may take gendered expectations to extreme and "perform" gender."

Personal bit for me there as despite my day to day clothing etc being generally masculine and comfortable, when I have to make a social "appearance" I will wear make up, heels and dresses as a "costume" - and spend the whole time consciously performing in the way I have learnt helps me to blend in best.

Well said AutisticAppropriation

As an autistic woman I'm very uncomfortable with some of the ablesplaining and perpetuating of stereotypical views of autism in these discussions.

You know how we hate how womanhood is being redefined by men? That's how it feels when non-autistics tell us what being autistic means. Be careful, please. Autistic women have a massive stake in this, we, and especially our younger equivalents, are incredibly vulnerable to the trans cult.

Thank you IWearPurple I really appreciate the time taken to post. What you have written is very informative and useful.

Just read further and AutisticAppropriation, ApathyIsland and I WearPurple again - you have all written excellent posts which have increased my understanding. This thread has been very useful.

YY to this survey being a marketing tool, it isn't used to expand on treatment or further understand being trans it is merely emotive percentages to fling at a lazy media and drum up sympathy. It is, in short, a load of bollocks. Sorry for lowering the tone after such eloquent posts.

“Statistically, of course, it means nothing, but out of six trans-identifying people I know, five of them have life-limiting health conditions. In every case it's a combination of musculoskeletal issues/chronic pain/chronic fatigue.

I wonder if its the long term hormones and/or 'harmless' puberty blockers causing these issues. This is very concerning tbh”

Yes I agree and I also wonder if it’s not been highlighted (or even completely ignored) as it would totally undermine the “hey gender non conforming / disphoric kids take blockers - and then take cross sex hormones totally reversible and risk free” mantras spouted by those that are pushing trans on children, because if they said “take blockers take hormones and there’s a 50% risk you might be disabled when you’re older” it’s significantly less attractive to the young people and their parents - a disabled girl is better than a dead boy doesn’t have the same ring does it?

Nice bit of autsplaining there. I’ve found as an actually autistic person that the complete opposite is more likely to be the case within my community, but by all means feel free to spout this rubbish as fact...

Apologies if I mispoke. I am autistic myself, as is my 5 year old daughter so obviously wrongly assumed that my own experiences are common. 'Rules' are a huge stickler for me. I have actually spent a very long time wondering if I am trans myself as even now I am extremely masculine for a woman and it does kind of..bother me a lot. But I should have realised that this might not be a 'rule' so to speak for others.

IWearPurple

Thanks for that. Its all very interesting. I am sorry I 'made' you post more than you intended to and to go into so much detail.

If nothing else, Vicxy, I hope these threads have reassured you that you can stop wondering if you're trans.

I'm pretty indignant, actually, that this whole hoo-hah has led so many people to question whether there was something 'wrong' with their identity. And younger people are so, so vulnerable to it.

If nothing else, Vicxy, I hope these threads have reassured you that you can stop wondering if you're trans.

Oh mumsnet has helped me immensely in that respect. it was back when I was at school that this issue effected me most, I was not feminine at all and actually started self harming when puberty hit as I hated it so much. Would have done anything to actually be a boy. This is part of the reason I am so against puberty blockers actually. I was that kid. I am positive I would have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. I am fairly happy as a woman, I would not have my beautiful children..I do realise now that its 'normal' to not be totally feminine as a woman but it still is in the back of my mind if that makes sense. And even though I hate most things feminine, when I go out in public I feel I have to slap on a faceful of makeup and stuff like that. And I do do those things even though I don't really want to.

Going by the large variety of labels I am actually a-gende,r or gender queer. Which does actually make me trans. Though, going on stonewalls definitions everyone is trans anyway.

Puberty can be horrendous for autistic people. Breasts and body hair are, for me, a sensory nightmare and menstruation is torturous for me. It's really not hard to see why biologically female autistic people might want to get a mastectomy and take hormones so they don't have to deal with bleeding every month.

apathyisland
I can only speak for autistic-me but I couldn’t wait for periods or breasts or pubic hair as a young girl. I blame Judy Blume and her fantastic books! I love having breasts (nothing sexual) but they didn’t grow until my mid20s so puberty was long gone by then! Periods I could happily do without now. Even breastfeeding didn’t stop them for long after giving birth. I was so caught up in social crap I barely noticed puberty.

Vicxy - I think under the current trans agenda it appears that very few people on this planet aren’t actually trans... (going by their definitions)

fair enough. everyone's different. but i think if you're prone to having body issues as i am autism will exacerbate it a hundredfold and possibly result in gender confusion

I wrote the message when I was excited and "made" wasn't the right word to use.

However, I really don't want good surveys called into question because of beliefs about "small" sample sizes.

:)