Gender-Inclusion Policies and Sexual Violence: A Longitudinal Analysis of Media Reports at Target Stores

[Trousered]

So for the mumsnet surveillance team rocking up to say that we are Trump supporting bigots and it never happens. Here's some data from the USA.

womanmeanssomething.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/A-Longitudinal-Analysis-of-Media-Reports-at-Target-Stores.pdf

Responses to what we will henceforth call the "sexual predator" theory include that the argument is a red herring to disguise transphobic prejudices, that no incidents have ever occurred which would support the theory, and that sex offenders will not be hindered or abetted by policies due to the particular nature of their offending and motivation.

This author believes that the sexual predator theory is a credible one due to the literature on sexual offenses, especially the paraphilic disorders of voyeurism and exhibitionism. These data may not be an area of knowledge for transgender advocates, and may be why some have coded opposition to gender-identity access as transphobia.

Bump. I think this deserves more attention.

I do like to see proper statistical analysis in social science, not to mention consideration of alternative explanations and an admission that we don't know the answer.

Conclusion

We believe this study to be the first available longitudinal analysis related to gender-inclusion policies and harms. Relying on media-reported sexual incidents in Target stores, we databased and analyzed 220 sexual incidents. All the perpetrators were men, the vast majority of incidents had female victims (94.5%), and 34% victimized children. A total of 99.1% of the incidents had women or children as victims, with adult same-sex violence being almost negligible.

We found a significant rise in sexual incidents across the timeframe, although some of this is probably due to more media reports being available for recent dates. More particular to our investigation, we found a very significant increase in upskirt and peeping tom incidents comparing the period just prior to the policy announcement to the period following. Using the three-season forced-category measure, probably the most conservative measure, there were 2.3x the amount of upskirt incidents post-policy and 2.9x the amount of peeping tom incidents. The Poisson regression found the 4-year pre-policy to post-policy rate change to be 3.03 for Upskirt and 3.14 for Peeping Tom, and the 2-year to be 2.16 for Upskirt and 2.34 for Peeping Tom, using Trimester as a variable.

While it is possible that a general rise in voyeuristic sexual offenses relative to other offenses may account for some of this increase, the magnitude and precise timing of the increase suggests that Target’s genderinclusion policy accounts for the bulk of it. The most likely hypothesis to explain our findings is that Target’s policy signaled to sexual offenders that voyeuristic offenses would be easier to perpetrate in their stores than elsewhere. This study demonstrates that gender-inclusion policies can bring about increased harm to women and children.

Media-loss remains a limitation in this study, which we have mitigated by relying heavily on the most recent years for analysis. Geographically-matched store comparisons would also be helpful in determining if the increase seen in Target stores are seen elsewhere. We have begun to collect and analyze police reports for a future study that we hope will address the need for a geographically-matched location control.

Good post: lots of bits stand out to me but this certainly does from the conclusion:-

. The most likely hypothesis to explain our findings is that Target’s policy signaled to sexual offenders that voyeuristic offenses would be easier to perpetrate in their stores than elsewhere. This study demonstrates that gender-inclusion policies can bring about increased harm to women and children

There's so much in this report that is useful for arguing with TRAs, I've saved a copy and will come back to it when I next write to my MP.

Home Office data included here. Points out that these crimes simply don't lead to prosecutions.

Voyeurism Increase Hypothesis A second possible explanation for the rise, and a far more likely one, is that some, or all, of the rise is due to an increase in voyeurism generally in society, relative to other sexual offenses. Joyal (2016) notes that recent studies on paraphilias show rising rates of interest and behavior.lxi Voyeurism was the highest desired and experienced paraphilia in this study, while exposure was relatively low.

In addition to a possible rise in voyeuristic fantasy, there are a number of other reasons that voyeurism could perhaps be increasing; technology ubiquity (cellphones) and advancement, (hidden cameras with wireless connections) and/or widespread
12 | P a g e

pornography use (which is inherently voyeuristic). Moreover, and related to our study, the number of unisex or gender-neutral facilities may be increasing, both in society in general, and in clothing stores in particular.

Getting statistics on voyeurism is challenging due to the variety, lack, or unspecific nature of laws related to these offenses. As mentioned previously, they tend to be the most unreported of crimes, and the least likely to move from report to legal proceedings. In the UK Home Office data, there were 7007 voyeurism and exposure incidents in 2011, but only 951 proceeded to legal action.lxii

Trousered thank you. As Posie said Women know, we know. Great that data is now coming forth to support this.

I can't be the only one who finds it utterly ridiculous that we even need formal figures to confirm that mixed sex facilities increases the risk to women.

My dur can be heard on the moon.

Bump

I can't be the only one who finds it utterly ridiculous that we even need formal figures to confirm that mixed sex facilities increases the risk to women.

Especially when the opposing side of this argument make up their figures and noone seems to give a fig.

Just looked this out to take to my MP on Saturday.

bump

Needs sending to all MPs, especially the woke women who stood up at Westminster Hall and spoke woke crap.

Yes, data. Facts. It never happens and all that.

I can't be the only one who finds it utterly ridiculous that we even need formal figures to confirm that mixed sex facilities increases the risk to women.

Yeah, it's just common sense.

Common sense is a rare resource nowadays, though.

Justin Danhof, a director at the National Center for Public Policy Research, raised the topic at Target’s Wednesday shareholders’ meeting in Costa Mesa, Calif. Danhof asked Target chief executive Brian Cornell whether he believed that customers and investors who disagree with Target’s policy are bigots, as well as whether Cornell regretted implementing the policy. Danhof said Cornell responded to his questions by speaking generally about the retailer’s focus on diversity. A Target spokeswoman said that Cornell “very much did reiterate that we want to be a place that is welcoming, comfortable and safe” for all shoppers.

www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2016/06/08/at-targets-shareholder-meeting-comes-a-question-about-its-bathroom-policy/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d2b9a4eae9af

"Diversity" and "inclusiveness" will also win out over women's and children's rights.

I can't be the only one who finds it utterly ridiculous that we even need formal figures to confirm that mixed sex facilities increases the risk to women.

Indeed. When you change the status quo or you insist your argument is correct and that things need to change because of it, the balance is on YOU to say why and prove the change will be beneficial.

Unless you’re a woman, in which case the change will be made anyway and if you do t like it you’ll need to fight to get data to show why.

Madness.

I think this needs repeating regularly:

The most likely hypothesis to explain our findings is that Target’s policy signaled to sexual offenders that voyeuristic offenses would be easier to perpetrate in their stores than elsewhere. This study demonstrates that gender-inclusion policies can bring about increased harm to women and children.

"always" not "also". Grrr. Decaffeinated coffee this morning.