Trans Women Should Be Allowed In Women Only Spaces

[KiBob]

I posted a few days ago that I need help arguing a case on the debating website Kialo. Thanks to your suggestions I've got one claim accepted that I was struggling with.

I'm now trying to get a new claim past admins.

As a supporting claim to:

"Allowing anyone who identifies as female into women-only spaces makes those spaces worse for cis women".

I put this:

"Trans women are 6 times more likely to commit a crime and 18 times more likely to commit a violent crime compared to female controls as found by this study In Sweden in 2011". With a link to this study:
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885

Admin have responded:

"Hm, interesting link. However, the results don't differentiate between trans men and trans women, and also state this: "Transsexual individuals were at increased risk of being convicted for any crime or violent crime after sex reassignment (Table 2); this was, however, only significant in the group who underwent sex reassignment before 1989." - so this might be a bit outdated - 30 years is pretty long.
Further up, in the Abstract, under results it also says "Female-to-males, but not male-to-females, had a higher risk for criminal convictions than their respective birth sex controls."

Can you point me to the exact place where you get your numbers? Thanks!"

Help!

You’re extraordinarily confused. I said the author was playing down the (incidental) findings of the paper under political pressure. That she played down and obfuscated findings is self-evident to anyone who has read both the paper and the quote.

That she was under political pressure can be inferred from circumstantial evidence (quote is from interview in the Transadvocate, the TRA track record with academia) but that is not an allegation against the academic, for crying out loud.

homestar I am not confused. You are inferring something based on conjecture. You are suggesting that a reputable academic is disputing her own findings because of political pressure, rather than taking her at her word, and believing her when she clarifies her own paper. That is a direct attack on her reputation.

What evidence would accept that she was not doing this? If she told you straight that that wasn't the case, you wouldn't believe her, so your conjecture can't be disproved, and "shadowy forces are conspiring to corrupt her" is a straightforward conspiracy theory.

None of this has any bearing on the argument other than to make that paper disputable. So, I suggest you stop using it as evidence to support your position. It's not.

There is currently no good evidence either way, and that needs to change.

It has been said many times that paper doesn’t mean what you think it means, the author has said it herself to stop using it to try and fit your narrative (and not jsut on transadvocate she also created her own reddit thread)

If your only ‘evidence’ is from a study based on trans people 30 years ago, before there was good mental health support - then citing this evidence makes your argument look weaker than not mentioning it.

And you won’t believe me but I’m genuinely not saying that to be goady, but anyone who reads that study without a bias to either side is likely to view the FPFW analysis as misleading

Can you please try to not be so stupid?

The paper says what it says and she did not contradict those findings. Her “clarification” was a carefully worded obfuscation, not a contradiction. It lumped together transwomen and transmen so her ‘clarification’ was completely irrelevant to the question of how violent trans women are relative to cis women. That’s still in the paper. The result stands. It was not contradicted. The answer is: twenty times more violent.

No conspiracy theory is required to say that TRAs put academics under pressure. It is a well documented fact. It just makes you look even stupider to deny this.

And yes there needs to be more evidence but what academic is going to dare to research the question further? It’s very, very obvious from this paper and from the prison statistics what they would find.

homestar Ad hominems on me aren't helping your cause. She clarified the findings to deal with people over-extending her results to imply things they don't. Generalising from a narrow case is just poor science.

You saying "TRAs put acadmics under pressure" is not evidence that this writer has succumbed to such pressure. I note that you provide no other evidence than this smear of her reputation.

It's a conspiracy theory with a non-falsifiable conclusion, and I know from past experience conspiracy theorists double down in the face of contrary evidence.

Yes I’m sure a well respected academic and researcher located in Sweden is just scared of a bunch of TRA in the UK

Try that line In your letter OP, they won’t laugh you out of the building at all. Very scientific.

It clearly states that the violance was only evident in the pre 1988 cohort. After that when people started to recieve better MH provisions, there was no correlation. It also does not state what crimes were committed. This study does not back up your claims, I’m not saying they’re not true as I’ve not seen evidence on either side - but this study does not prove what you do desperatly want it to prove.

It’s not “generalising from a narrow case.” It was a large sample over a period of fifty years.

It’s not a “conspiracy theory.” It’s utterly idiotic to say it is.

I can’t continue to discuss anything with someone who doesn’t know what words mean.

But I’m glad you agree on the following:

-that the paper (which used data from all of the people who underwent transition in Sweden) found transwomen are 20x more violent than women,

-that the author did not retract or contradict this finding

-and that no statistical evidence is available that contradicts this finding.

Cheers.

And once again just for maximum clarity, it is not true that the post 1988 cohort of trans women were not more violent. And it is not what the author said.

The effect is no longer statistical significance for the “post-1988” cohort when trans women and men are lumped together.

The study found transwomen significantly (20x) more prone to violent crime than women, when the cohort is split you get again pre 1988 being significantly more violent. The post 1988 is simply too small to make any statistical judgement. That has nothing to do with mental healthcare quality, but simply with a too small cohort for meaningful statistical analysis.

Otherwise you could simply make any analysis where you don‘t want to find statistically significant difference so small in cohort, that you can‘t get meaningful statistics.

From the author-

^The individual in the image who is making claims about trans criminality, specifically rape likelihood, is misrepresenting the study findings. The study as a whole covers the period between 1973 and 2003. If one divides the cohort into two groups, 1973 to 1988 and 1989 to 2003, one observes that for the latter group (1989–2003), differences in mortality, suicide attempts and crime disappear. This means that for the 1989 to 2003 group, we did not find a male pattern of criminality.
The difference we observed between the 1989 to 2003 cohort and the control group is that the trans cohort group accessed more mental health care, which is appropriate given the level of ongoing discrimination the group faces. What the data tells us is that things are getting measurably better and the issues we found affecting the 1973 to 1988 cohort group likely reflects a time when trans health and psychological care was less effective and social stigma was far worse.^

The attached photo may also provide some perspective. Of the 70 trans inmates in UK prisons in 2016, only 14 reported their gender as female.

I won’t comment anymore, as I know that facts and statistics are untrue unless they agree with your narrative.

Good luck with finding some evidence for your letter OP. If you struggle, you could always just make something up?

Exactly deepwater, and it’s quite disturbing how “our data isn’t good enough to detect any problems when analysed in this particular way” gets translated into “there are no problems” in discussions. You can sweep anything under the rug when you interpret statistics this way.

EarlyWalker

Do you know the source for your photo?

The recent FOI requests showed almost double that number of known transwomen prisoners in the male prison estate.

That's quite a jump in two years.

It’s government published.

Here is the most recent one, page 13 if you’d like to have a read -

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/663390/noms-offender-equalities-annual-report-2016-2017.pdf

@EarlyWalker

Sorry just reread and can see you are not returning to the thread so I am reposting with @

If you don't want to return to the thread you can be PM if you want. I'm just really interested in the number of trans men who I have not seen numbers for before.

EarlyWalker

Do you know the source for your photo?

The recent FOI requests showed almost double that number of known transwomen prisoners in the male prison estate.

That's quite a jump in two years.

Oops cross post, thanks

Where in the report does it say it is transwoman in the prison estate and not transmen? I just read the FOI report and saw this:

There is provision for any female prisoner - trans or not - to be housed in a men's prison if she's deemed especially dangerous. It's more complex if she doesn't have a GRC. In England and Wales, she can only be located in a women's prison if she's had a case conference

I can’t see where it specifically differentiates between transmen and transwoman but I may just be missing it!

Oh I can see that this was published in November last year. If it's an annual report I should be able to see how the latest figures tally up with FOI rather soon.

Thanks again

Sorry I think we are at talking at cross purposes. I'm taking about the recent BBC fact check on the number of transwomen prisoners.

I haven't read the report you just posted but will do later. However I made the perhaps the incorrect assumption that your photo talks about people identifying as either male or female and not as their "sex" therefore classed them as trans men or women.

It's one reason why I asked for the report, so I can read the footnotes and definitions.

Fair Play completed an FOI request. It does not make for comfortable reading for anyone who is concerned about women's rights.

fairplayforwomen.com/prison-data-confirmed/

Could someone please post the link to the BBC fact check of those figures as I'm on the move and I feel a bit rude not linking as earlywalker came back and posted.

Thanks

I’m still very confused as to what the data proves...

So FPFW have confirmed 100 inmates who have declared themselves as MTF transgender in prison but do not hold a GRC (as this wouldn’t show on data?)

Statistics currently suggest around 650,000 transgender people in the UK. For arguments sake let’s split it 50/50 so its more in your favour as everything I’ve read suggests there are a lot more transwoman than transmen.

So 325,000 Transwoman in the UK, 100 in prison. So 0.02% of transwoman are in prisons.

3952 woman out of about 32 million in prison so as a percentage 0.012%

80,704 men out of about 31 million so as a percentage 0.26%.

I really don’t understand how any of the stats published by the BBC or FPFW prove that ‘trans woman continue to offend at the same rate as men and are the same risk as men’?

Waiting for train so will be brief.

By your own ballpark figures transwomen show an offending rate twice that of women.

The fact check figures were showing that roughly 40/50% of known transwomen are in prison for sex/violent offences. Massively higher than the offender rate of men or women.

I brought up the fact-check because the number of transwomen (around 130 from memory) is significantly higher than the figure quoted in 16/17 report. I was very surprised at the increase.

Now IMO I don't actually believe that transwomen are a higher risk threat than men. I do believe predatory sexual offenders are claiming to be trans for various reasons.

Of course this is drifting from the op so sorry for the derail.

Ok train is late so not so brief sorry

Now IMO I don't actually believe that transwomen are a higher risk threat than men. I do believe predatory sexual offenders are claiming to be trans for various reasons.

Which backs up the OP in fact, which if you recall was:

""Allowing anyone who identifies as female into women-only spaces makes those spaces worse for cis women".

I've encountered both counter arguments now.

I say, bad actors will abuse the right to self identify and gain access to vulnerable women.

They say, "show me the evidence, there is no evidence".

So I say, "well it has been shown that transwomen commit crime at a rate similar to men".

They say, "no they don't that's not true, that's down to a few bad actors skewing the stats".

Imo I think it’s far easier to argue the point of ‘allowing anyone who says they identify as a female into woman only spaces will make those spaces worse for cis woman’

Stating anyone who identifies as a woman, applies to transwoman and not dangerous predators pretending to be a woman

There is no concrete evidence to support the claims that transwoman offend at the same rate as men, post Sweden 1988 so you will struggle to have any valid points that will be taken seriously to call for the full exclusion of all Transwoman.