The most "vulnerable"

[ofwarren]

I mentioned on the AIBU thread that im Aspergers diagnosed so sometimes need things explained as I deal in facts. My question is, where does the TW are the "most vulnerable" in society come from?
I cant see evidence that they are.
What about refugees, women suffering domestic violence, children in CSA situations, the disabled, those with terminal illness, those extremely vulnerable who are now shielded.

I understand there are high rates of suicide ideation amongst trans teens but the stats show that men are most likely to commit suicide.
Its probably a really stupid question and im sorry for that, but what am I missing?

Yes, indeed.

I was wondering this - it seems key.

Women have what is called 'cis privilege', according to the TWAWs.

I am not quite sure what this amounts to - I think they try to imply we are less at risk of male violence. The evidence seems to suggest otherwise, but this is conveniently ignored as far as I can tell.

Babies are the most vulnerable members of society.

As in actual babies, I’m not name calling.

@Deliriumoftheendless

Babies are the most vulnerable members of society.

That is very true Its just repeated over and over again on twitter, seemingly only regarding TW not TM. I just cant see what makes them the most vulnerable. If they did get attacked, they have a bigger chance of being able to fight of the attacker than your average woman does.

You're not missing anything. It's not the case that trans people are the most vulnerable in society.
A lot of TRAs state that trans people are most prone to attack or murder but this can quickly be disproved. The stats they use are skewed by a high number of trans sex workers in Brazil who have been attacked and/or killed, but in the UK and the US there is no evidence to suggest that they are more prone to violence than any other group.
Mental health problems on the other hand needs more investigation but a lot of detransitioners report having problems in their teen years which they thought transitioning would solve and when it didn't they became severely depressed / anxious / suicidal.
I think it's not surprising that young people who make a potentially life changing choice and then don't find it cures them of all their ills would struggle with the effects of that.

It's a thought terminating cliche that's uttered to stop people questioning what's going on.

And it's utter bollocks.

Even if they were the most vulnerable it wouldn't change the truth:
Men cannot become women. Women cannot become men.
Only women menstruate and give birth.

I can think of no other instance where facts are re-written because the truth might upset a vulnerable group.

I’ve been thinking this myself recently. I’ve had various emails from companies donating to LGBQT charities, brands releasing T-shirts and shoes to promote LGBQT. I can’t quite get over how a group sponsored and supported by such high profile brands can be the most vulnerable in society? Banks, celebrities, supermarkets, TV channels all behind them. I looked at reported hate crimes in the U.K. and trans has the lowest figure. I found one Uk trans murder and it wasn’t even a hate crime. My daughter is autistic and autistic kid have a high suicide and self harm rate and no one is selling a cookie for them. No bank or supermarket is changing their slogan for her.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2019/oct/15/hate-crimes-double-england-wales

With the suicide myth, my question is always: why do we not have a historic mystery of unexplained suicides around the world since time began? There should be quite a lot of them, and we would now be able to explain them, but the mystery was never there.

This claim is made because vulnerability confers moral authority.

It's probably because of the suicides stats claim which is false but it could be because there was a report on recorded hate crime and the BBC mislead their audience.

Islamophobia is the category with the highest rates of hate crime.

Misogyny cannot recorded as hate crime and the police don't record it.

I've wondered the same. It gets said a lot that transpeople are the most vulnerable and oppressed people in society.

The only group of transpeople I would perhaps agree with as most vulnerable are teenagers - but that's because they are vulnerable mentally (to suggestion that they can change sex) as opposed to physically

Yes, "women" were left out of the protected list in the hate crimes legislation.

A search on duck-duck reveals a reddit thread which estimates there are 84 million videos on p*rnhub (weirdly google won't even let me ask the question...), which would probably be 84 million for starters (well, maybe 83 and nine tenths of a million when we'd removed those that were demonstrably consensual, non-violent fluffy cuddly sex).

All those "show us your tits, love" yells from white vans. Hands on the arse on the underground.

And that's before we even get to the "serious" stuff.

(For the record, I do not like the currently framed hate crimes legislation. It is used selectively and in a biased way to shut down debate, while doing sweet fuck all to tackle genuine racism, etc. But if we have to have it on the statute books, I'd like it applied even-handedly.)

Babies are the most vulnerable members of society.

Indeed - the demographic with the highest incidence per head of being killed/seriously assaulted are babies under one.

Severe indictment of society that the statistic is not only true, but that focus is manipulated and deflected away to adult males.

Many groups are vulnerable. Some trans people are very vulnerable.

I suspect the least vulnerable are the ones making the most noise, not to help the helpless but to help themselves.

There are high rates of violence towards trans people - those involved in prostitution especially. But the high profile TRAs aren’t talking about them. They’re doing nothing to help. Just pointing at stats that don’t include them and claiming victim status. Rather like MRAs who talking male suicide but don’t actually do anything for support groups.

It would be like “Middle Class White Feminists” (trademark) claiming FGM applies to them and ignored the actual girls and women it effects. This does not happen.

And I hope I didn’t seem dismissive with my comment about babies- it does matter that so many groups are vulnerable and need help and support, but it’s appalling (as ThinEndOfTheWedge says) that so many people don’t give a fuck about this. (Present company excepted).

It seems to be used as a means of stopping any debate - like this:

twitter.com/JennyBoylan/status/1270902936638496768

I don't think any group has used this line before. I don't remember gay poeple arguing for civil partnerships and then marriage by saying they would kill themselves if they didn't get their rights. The argument was made on the merits of the cause. Peter Tatchell actually defended a man who was on trial for saying homosexuality was wrong on the grounds that he had a right to hold that belief.

This is such a good question, OP. Statistics are so important and they are trans-activists most used weapon. They always feel slightly plucked from the air as there is never usually a study linked.

Things like celebrities asserting that the life expectancy of trans people is 30/35 years old. Apparently, that stat came from the study mentioned above from a small sample of mainly South American countries where the majority of the data came from trans sex workers.

But it is so persuasive and sounds so terrible.

It is also so very misleading.

“If
@jk_rowling
thinks I shouldn’t exist, then maybe I shouldn’t.”

And maybe they don’t.

We seem to be getting a lot of rather naive statement-style questions in Feminism Chat over the last few days so that we're asked to repeat the same old same old over and over again. Distraction technique, maybe.

It's not a terribly good distraction technique because all it's doing is flooding "active conversations" with new click bait. I suspect this may not be achieving quite what the people doing it think it's achieving. (But then again, this happens a lot. The Streisand effect.)

The suicide and attempted suicide stats are difficult to contend with. Again - they are not usually backed up by evidence.

I find this an oddly circular argument too. I once expressed my sympathy for people suffering from dysphoria. I thought they should receive all the counselling they need and receive empathy and kindness in their suffering. It really must be awful.

Yet I was called a transphobe by a TRA who claim that you can be trans without dysphoria and I am patronising people and acting as though it's a mental illness. They don't need my sympathy or concern, thank you.

Yet, on the other hand, they argue that, if they are not affirmed and granted access to women's spaces, they will suffer and attempt suicide.

Which is it?!

@Shedbuilder

We seem to be getting a lot of rather naive statement-style questions in Feminism Chat over the last few days so that we're asked to repeat the same old same old over and over again. Distraction technique, maybe.

Is that aimed at me? You can check my account, ive been around for ages. My question may be "naive" but im entitled to ask it. I wouldnt get a proper answer anywhere else. Im not willing to take things as fact without knowing why.

I've definitely seen you around, Ofwarren. (I certainly wasn't aiming at you - but there have been a fair few odd threads, odd new posters, and I suspect a whole laundry-basket worth of socks doing the rounds since the weekend).

It's like everything in this debate that's taken at face value and has no nuance.

Trans people individually can be very vulnerable for a multitude of reasons but that doesn't apply to all and it doesn't exclude the possibility that some are potentially harmful to other vulnerable people.

Aimee Challoner is a good example of this.