369 transpeople murdered? Channel 4 checked.

[WTFIsAGleepglorp]

An actual proper analysis of ONS statistics

Whodathunk?

Sorry for the long post but I'm feeling pedantic...

So there’s something clearly wrong with a large number of men engaged on domestic relationships with transwomen.

Not all trans women are attracted to men. If they were, FWR wouldn't be hopping about that "cotton ceiling" Twitter idiot would it.

The partners of TW and the punters who seek them out are not being radicalised by Germaine Greer. They see themselves as ‘woke’.

No-one is saying GC feminists are killing trans women, why are you trying to refute that they are? No-one says they are. But equally you're massively over-reaching to say the people who kill them are "woke". This is all taking a very bizarre turn.

The killer of Naomi Hersi didn't believe TWAW, he didn't believe she was a person at all.

Exactly, in complete opposition to the quote from a pp that I just responded to.

"Femicide is generally defined as the murder of women because they are women, though some definitions include any murders of women or girls."

Did you miss the words because they are women? Or did you just forget that you'd previously written, "Nope.(...) the crime is femicide regardless of motive"?

I don't see how you can know that that was as a result of her being trans.

No, it's probably because she made him angry. Like women's partners don't kill them because they're women, they kill them because they made them angry.

Bullshit.

Definitely haven't been on FWR, and I don't name change. What would be the point? I stand by my posts.

Although, to be scrupulously fair, Rat has been on many Trans posts recently but has been quiet in FemChat!

Thanks, you're quite right. Trans posts in Active, I'M IN!! FWR? I had taken to avoiding.

CBA to read the endless to and fro and besides, if I do, Rat and I will just have another obnoxious argument that is unedifying for others to read, which I'm sure everyone, including Rat and myself, could do without.

It seems very clear to me that whenever analysis is done, trans people are actually much safer in UK society than their activists like to admit. This is a good thing. But honestly? I don't really think it's so much a trans thing as a class thing. Trans is a majority middle class phenomenon and middle class people are a lot safer than working class people.

“Trans is a majority middle class phenomenon and middle class people are a lot safer than working class people.”

And world wide being a prostitute is shockingly dangerous regardless of sexual identity, sex or sexuality. Many of the trans murder victims worldwide have been prostitutes.

No, it's probably because she made him angry. Like women's partners don't kill them because they're women, they kill them because they made them angry.

Am I the only one ready that as being victim blaming?

Reading, not ready.

Well I suppose I should thank Rat for enabling knowledgeable and articulate women to explain the context of these statistics and fill in the gaps.

I, for one, am now far clearer about the reality behind the numbers and feel more reassured regarding the safety of trans people in the UK.

Am I the only one ready that as being victim blaming?

Yes. It is. That's the point I was making. No-one thinks it's okay to pass off violence against women as being because they made a man angry; it's not okay to pass off violence against trans women in the same vein.

Trans is a majority middle class phenomenon

Interesting assertion, and it's a new one on me. Source?

I should thank Rat for enabling knowledgeable and articulate women to explain the context of these statistics and fill in the gaps.

If they're doing this elsewhere, can you please point them to this thread so they can do it here then?

I'm glad you're clearer about the stats, but I for one have never seen that 369 portrayed as anything other than the global number. If you've gotten it previously second hand from individuals who misrepresented it, well I'm pleased you've learnt a lesson in checking stats back to reputable sources.

"I for one have never seen that 369 portrayed as anything other than the global number."

Disingenuous. It is frequently presented just as a number, with no context at all. Very easy for the assumption to be made that it's a UK figure. Particularly with the "trans people are at huge risk and are being hurt and killed all the time" narrative.

Disingenuous. It is frequently presented just as a number, with no context at all.

Where??

I've seen it on Stonewall Facebook updates and various other trans-inclusive Facebook pages (Pantsuit Nation for example), and it always says it's the number killed globally in the last year

Where are people saying otherwise??

Usually a comment about bigots and terfs as well, as if we were out looking to cause violence and murder.

Not all trans women are attracted to men. If they were, FWR wouldn't be hopping about that "cotton ceiling" Twitter idiot would it.

But the DV stats you keep quoting say transwomen are more at risk from partners than they are from strangers.

So your argument is what, that much of this domestic violence is coming from female partners?

Or that the even smaller number of men involved with transwomen that I accounted for are even more violent to make up for their low numbers?

Because the only way that transwomen can be more vulnerable to domestic violence is that either one or the other, or a combination of both, is true.

From Owl in the Metro:
November is a particularly hard month for trans people. Today marks Transgender Day of Remembrance, a day where we remember those murdered simply for being trans. This year a shocking figure of 369 trans people were reported murdered, and 28 of those were young people under the age of 20.

No explanation that it was global figures they were talking about. Their accompanying tweet simply quoted the stat too.

There were many similar tweets and articles.

And world wide being a prostitute is shockingly dangerous regardless of sexual identity, sex or sexuality. Many of the trans murder victims worldwide have been prostitutes.

Several of those killed in the UK were sex workers too.

The loudest and most vociferous TRAs, on the other hand, are mainly spoilt brats from university towns who have almost zero chance of being murdered.

So your argument is what, that much of this domestic violence is coming from female partners?

Not at all, my argument is that you can't use the fact that many trans people are hurt by domestic partners as evidence that the kind of man who thinks TWAW is more likely to be violent; because that isn't what that stat says. Just as a reminder of what I was replying to, in its entirety...

So there’s something clearly wrong with a large number of men engaged on domestic relationships with transwomen.

It is men who believe TWAW who are commiting domestic violence against transwomen.

The point I was making is that the domestic violence stat doesn't even specify the sex or gender of the assailant - or the victim, for that matter. Perhaps it's men who think trans men are women who are committing all the assaults, who knows? What I'm saying is... the above conclusion from this pp is clearly BARMY!!

If you put "369 trans killed" into google you can find quite a few. Not even counting Twitter, facebook etc, here is just one example of, at best, poor writing:

A Regional Message from Unison has no mention of international or global in any part of the message, so you are left reading a regional message with International stats! On Trans Day of Remembrance this year we remember 369 trans and gender diverse people killed this year alone, that’s 1 a day, simply for being who they truly are.

northern.unison.org.uk/news/article/2018/11/statement-unison-northern-regional-lgbt-co-chair-trans-ally-transgender-day-remembrance/

I say 'poor writing' as there are few Americanisms, including 'honor' in the header!

It is hard to maintain any sense of perspective if you don't use the same measurements as everyone else does. Remember in exams. If you didn't include the unit of measurement you got no marks, no matter how good the rest of your answer? Well this is the same thing!

No explanation that it was global figures they were talking about. Their accompanying tweet simply quoted the stat too.

I found the article! Thanks

To be fair, I see what you mean about not making any mention, but in defence of the article the stat is a hyperlink to a source that makes it abundantly clear it's global.

And even if not everyone follows the hyperlink, the whole middle chunk of the article is about global issues faced by trans people. It starts "In many parts of the world trans people...", so whilst the first citation of the stat is unqualified, it's pretty clear the article is about global issues, don't you think?

Perhaps we'll have to just agree to disagree though. FWIW I imagine there are certainly those out there who would want to deliberately portray it as a UK figure, just as those who would like to portray any stat of trans people's suffering as overblown and exaggerated. BOTH are misrepresenting the reality. I guess we'll both just have to keep pulling people up on it when we see it.

... and not all of those 369 were trans, either! Trans and non-binary which, as we all know, could include every human being on the planet!

Remember in exams. If you didn't include the unit of measurement you got no marks, no matter how good the rest of your answer?

I agree with you Curious! I hate bad stats, and yes, that article is badly written - and that's generous. It's additionally misleading I think because the context is UNISON - a UK (I think) group - so the context for figures is UK unless otherwise stated. Totally with you on that one!

And even if not everyone follows the hyperlink, the whole middle chunk of the article is about global issues faced by trans people. It starts "In many parts of the world trans people...", so whilst the first citation of the stat is unqualified, it's pretty clear the article is about global issues, don't you think?

No, I don't think that. It would have been very easy to make it clear. Given the rhetoric involved I can't help but feel that a lot of the time the waters are intentionally left muddy. 369 people doesn't sound quite so shocking when it is out of 7 billion on the planet. If anything what you would say from the UK is that trans people are no more at risk than anyone else, but that doesn't fit the narrative does it?

FWIW I imagine there are certainly those out there who would want to deliberately portray it as a UK figure, just as those who would like to portray any stat of trans people's suffering as overblown and exaggerated.

Most stats put our by TRAs appear to be overblown and exaggerated when looked into. The problem is that even to question them you get labelled as transphobic. It is not possible to have an honest discussion.

That analysis is blindingly clear. Well done C4 and the ONS.

(I should say that trans people are at no more risk of murder than anyone else. I don't know about things like domestic abuse.)

The information about the Transfender Day of Remembrance was a particularly noticeable example of the use of the 369 figure. If the day had been called the International Transgender Day oF Remembrance all would have been clear without the need for footnotes.

The figure is particularly frustrating when coupled with the totally spurious suicide and attempted suicide statistics. Nothing is more calculated to make you feel like a bad person more than questioning the suicide stats in a minority group, but while TRAs are weaponising it has to be done.