Is this statement true

[iMum]

A man living as a woman is no less likely to sexually offend than a man living as a man

(Apart from the obvious wtf even is living as a woman)

Collective MN wisdom Are there stats available that you may have seen or can link to because this is very much addling my mind atm.

Off the top of my head there's this: fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-prisoners/

The lack of data is a huge problem. There is this one Swedish study that found that fully transitioned male to female transsexuals showed the same criminality patterns and violent criminality patterns as men within the margin of error. (transitioned female to male transsexuals interestingly were more criminal than women.) But the study did not look at sexual offences specifically.

The problem we currently face are quite different though, considering that increasingly MtF transpeople are autogynephiles who may not even want an operation. There we only have this one number that, what, >40% (?) of 'transwomen' in prison were there for a sexual offence, which is double the rate than that of men in prison. From that I would conclude they are probably (at least) as likely to sexually offend as men. But these numbers obviously cannot substitute a meaningful, controlled scientific study with thorough statistical analysis.

fairplayforwomen.com/violence/

The search function here is shocking so it's almost impossible to identify the threads and posts where statistics have been posted but the comparison on FPFW's link is helpful with the analysis.

Swedish study here. (Empress gave the prison stats, already.)

journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885

Thank you all, the recording and analysis of this data is I think going to fall by the woke wayside more and more now.

And...we're not going to have accurate data if crimes are going to be recorded in line with stated identify not birth identity.

Personally, I think it might even be tricky for such a study of 'transwomen' as they are understood now, to select whom to include in the 'transwomen' cohort to study. Unlike the Swedish study that looked at transsexual with full SRS, a clear denominator, what would you even go by? Self-ID? Self declaration of living consistently as a woman for X years?
Thought through to its conclusion, given that everone and their dog can identify as a woman, depending on nothing but self declaration, ultimately the criminality patterns (and pretty much any other patterns) of men and 'transwomen' should at best converge (at worst co-occurring paraphilias in autogynephiles and men who simply put a frock on because they want access to women or children might skew the numbers higher, as the prison stats suggest. But without reliable data, this is conjecture).

I understand that the people behind the famous Swedish study regard it as not justifying some of the claims made about it. Even if it is valid , one issue is the type of "offences"; people turning up at Gender Clinics very often have a history or depression, alcohol or substance abuse. They have basically been a mess. The clinics do not normally provide treatment till those issues have been addressed. Crimes committed after transition , with less or no testosterone and with female hormones, could be expected to be of a different type. And are, from anecdotal reports. As we know that some weightlifters ( etc) have abused testosterone to the point of rages and anger tantrums, you'd expect having less testosterone to have the opposite effect. And it generally does.

Until recent years transitioning usually took one out of the work force, and homelessness and rifts with family and friends were common. In my 50 years of experience of all this ( I am a TS woman) I know of almost none who continued with antisocial behaviours. One or two entered the sex trade, for the money, but they stopped that when their lives, and private treatment, ended. I did know one young transitioner who I was asked to be a mentor to, who proved to be a hopeless case and was just as much of a thief and benefits cheat as " her" .

I understand that the people behind the famous Swedish study regard it as not justifying some of the claims made about it.

Well, the data speak for themselves and neither the data nor any text of the study were retracted. I do believe the first author (a junior scientist) was interviewed on some trans-medium and backtracked on some stuff which is clearly obvious from the article's data. Possibly to be polite. I do not know. The corresponding author, who would usually also be her supervisor, never retracted the article, nor did any other co-author. Not even the junior sicentist herself made any statements that any of her data was wrong or misrepresented.

Just a female scientist minimizing her work to be polite and PC.

Until recent years transitioning usually took one out of the work force, and homelessness and rifts with family and friends were common.

Well, I mean, the Swedish study doesn't say TS are particularly criminal or dangerous, just the same as men. Personaly I know many men, and I would have to think long and hard to find one who went to prison. (None where I know of a sexual offence). So, if you know as many transsexuals, I wouldn't be surprised if you don't know a criminal one.
But stilll statistically rates are higher for men than women and the male violence shapes society.

More research is needed.

That research cannot be done if crime statistics are not accurate. Some police forces are already recording crimes in the self identified gender of the alleged perp, not their sex.

That research is strongly opposed as being transphobic by TRAs. Even neutral research, by people who do not have an agenda, has been subjected to so much harassment it’s been closed down.

Academics who do not unconditionally swallow the TRA line are hounded, deplatformed, threatened and subjected to draconian policing of their work (see recent Sussex uni statement on transphobia.)

Ask yourself who gains when the facts are not known?

Personaly I know many men, and I would have to think long and hard to find one who went to prison.

I don't know the current statistics but a famous analysis in the 80s revealed that approx. 1 in 3 men under the age of 30 had a conviction for a criminal offence (to differentiate it from traffic and other similar civil offences). [NB - it's probably the 1953 data mentioned below.]

Most of the boys with whom I was in infant and primary school had been in Approved School or its analogue by 15. And the rest were in and out of prison for years (like their fathers and other male relatives in most cases).

This report from 2002 would suggest that the number are similar:

www.theguardian.com/money/2002/apr/14/workandcareers.observercashsection

By the end of this summer, measures will be in place that could threaten the job prospects of up to 30 per cent of men. When the new Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) is fully operational, it will make it extremely easy for employers to check the records of their staff and prospective employees.

This may sound quite normal - until you consider that almost a third of men have a criminal conviction by the age of 30, according to the Home Office. Research on men born in 1953 showed that about 30 per cent had clocked up a standard list offence - one that is dealt with by the courts but excludes minor motoring offences - by their thirtieth birthday. Research in Scotland points in the same direction, suggesting that about 25 per cent of men have a record by age 24.

Actual rates of imprisonment for offences have varied with governments and resources.

More research is needed.

Yeah, but how do you do that, when you can't even define the group you are looking at? Obviously, the classic fully transitioned TS can be defined, and, sure, researching that cohort is interesting, too. But (not least due to their small numbers), I don't think they are the real issue.
(I've lived in a country where this type of 'sex change' after SRS has long been legal, but obvously so rare that it did not create noticeable issues.)
But, I mean, defining the cohort of males that are now under the trans umbrella according to Stonewall&Co is like nailing jelly to the wall.

I also feel that I should chip in and say the a while back we attended the 70th birthday party of a friend who has a career of political activitism. His mother (they're a long-lived family) gave a speech about how proud she is of him and how one of her proudest moments was also her saddest - and that was when he was deported straight after he was released from prison and they couldn't meet up again for a long time.

That shocked a number of people in the room who hadn't realised that he'd been imprisoned for his anti-apartheid union activities in SA (his home country) and was deported on those grounds.

I don’t think there’s enough data to back up that claim. The Swedish study relates to those transitioned prior to 1980 and falls apart after that and it doesn’t specify the type of offences, the trans prisoners data is based solely on those serving a longer prison sentence (more likely to be sexual offenders) and as we have no data on how many transwoman there are in the UK, it’s impossible to get a statistic from it.

I don't know the current statistics but a famous analysis in the 80s revealed that approx. 1 in 3 men under the age of 30 had a conviction for a criminal offence (to differentiate it from traffic and other similar civil offences).

Wow. I mean clearly whom you know may depend a bit on where you live and work. Even though I might not know of convictions that do not land someone in prison, admittedly. So I may know about 50 men well enough to know of any convictions in, say, the past 20 years. And those had none.

But taking the Swedish study, you have an incidence rate of 3.6 in 1000 person years commiting a violent crime and 18 of a thousand person years committing any crime, when it comes to male to female TS (for men it was half that, but after correction factors for other influences both numbers converge) monitored over 30 years. That would be 3.6 convictions in 33.3 individuals over 30 years, correct? So 10% commit some violent crime within 30 years. (If you now correct for hazard factors like drug abuse to levels fund in the men cohort you end up with 5% committing a crime within 30 years, similar to men, correct?). Yeah, the general crime rates would be in the ballpark of 30% within 30 years (post correction for hazard) if I did not fuck up calculations.

But still, the real challenge we face in terms of managing risk is the 'trans umbrella', due to numbers and inability to define who is even in the group.

I don’t think there’s enough data to back up that claim. The Swedish study relates to those transitioned prior to 1980 and falls apart after that

No, it doesn't 'fall apart after that'. You are misreading statistics. Any such study 'falls apart' at some point upon decreasing time increments. The data still stand. It was simply not possible to identify a trend over time, because splitting up the time frame into smaller pieces made the data in obe frame statistically unreliable. That is not 'falling apart'.

A man living as a woman is no less likely to sexually offend than a man living as a man

In my view, that statement tends to focus on individuals (i.e. - could be pointing at an individual) whereas I'd rather focus on populations. But I do agree that on a population level that statement is true.

splitting up the time frame into smaller pieces made the data in obe frame statistically unreliable. That is not 'falling apart'.

Agreed. Longitudinal studies will always have those caveats, particularly when it's (by necessity) a small group and people have the right not to have their data included in the analysis (as they must).

It didn’t show a male pattern of criminality in the group surveyed after 1980 (which is, the scientist said, when they started receiving better MH care) which disproves the claim you use it for.
However, some of you have pointed out that in the latter group they use transmen as well as woman which is why it’s lowered (which is an assumption in the first place) so the later statistics are not reliable.

So in my eyes, either after 1980 it disproved your point or it fell apart.

And aside from that, the study didn’t reveal how many, if any, were convinced of sexual assaults. So the study is irrelevent to the OPs question as it didn’t mention what crime.

It didn’t show a male pattern of criminality in the group surveyed after 1980

Wrong. The smple size in terms of people-years was too small to make any judgement for this cohort one way or the other. The data neither showed male pattern criminality nor non-male pattern criminality. So no judgement can be made about that.

Including the post 1980 cohort into the whole sampe size showed male pattern criminality for the whole cohort.

This is impossible to answer. If a person is arrested and taken in to police custody and they are wearing a dress they will be recorded as female even if they are masturbating their erect penis at the time. For as long as a dress defines your sex more than an erect penis this question cannot be answered.

A man living as a woman is no less likely to sexually offend than a man living as a man

My question would be, what has happened to any man, in the process of 'living as a woman' which can sometimes be nothing more than putting nail polish on, that will REDUCE the RISK to Women?

If someone wants to argue that z subset of men are less of a danger, the burden of proof lies with them. Until that point, we assume that subset z are not different from men as a whole.

There is no evidence subset z are a lower risk
There is some evidence that they are the same risk

If anyone wants to argue a lower risk - produce the data.

Null hypothesis, innit?