Transgender people twice as likely to be victim of crime

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2020

This publication reports on experiences of crime by the victim’s gender identity for the first time, after a new question on gender identity was trialed in the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) from 1 October 2019 to 18 March 2020. The data show those people whose gender identity is different from their sex registered at birth were twice as likely (28%) to be a victim of crime (excluding fraud) than those whose gender identity is the same as their sex registered at birth (14%) in the year ending March 2020.

CatandtheFiddle, this isn't specifically a question for you but your message is a good example. Even if differences in crime victimisation rate can be accounted for by other demographic distributions within the trans population, doesn't that still constitute victimisation (I'm not sure if this is quite the right word)?

For example, the rate of crime against those who spend more time away from home is higher. If a particular demographic is more likely to do this and, as a consequence, suffers a higher rate of crime then, I believe, this represents victimisation of a sort because they are suffering for living their lives as they see fit.

For me it's not about the fact that trans people experience violence. They do and the police stats show that transgender identity hate crime increased by 37% in 2018/19. That's a staggering amount, even with better reporting and misgendering as a hate crime factored and is unacceptable.

It's more about dubious stats/studies being used to further the groups own agendas.

It's more about dubious stats/studies being used to further the groups own agendas.
And I believe that we ourselves further their agenda when we allow ourselves to get embroiled in these arguments.

Those same stats also appear to show that gay, BAME people and people with disabilities also experience higher rates of crime but this isn't used as an argument for opening up women's spaces to them.

Eyes on the ball.

@Floisme

It's more about dubious stats/studies being used to further the groups own agendas. And I believe that we ourselves further their agenda when we allow ourselves to get embroiled in these arguments.

Those same stats also appear to show that gay, BAME people and people with disabilities also experience higher rates of crime but this isn't used as an argument for opening up women's spaces to them.

Eyes on the ball.

Agree with this.

Again, I think it's really improbable that trans people don't suffer disadvantage. I think common sense is clearly on the side that they do.

It's just that it isn't women's responsibility to resolve that, by sacrificing our own rights and protections, afforded to us by sex as a separate protected characteristic.

@Floisme

I agree with wellbehavedwomen. I'm not comfortable with picking the stats apart. I don't want to ignore the difficulties that trans people must face. But I do want someone to explain to me why any of it is an argument for removing women's legal rights and protections.

Same.

Yes, I do agree with that. I didn't express myself very well.

Nobody has said that they lie. But such a thing as hate crime against Transpeople exists. No such crime against women exists. Consequently they will inevitably suffer higher rates of crime.

And it’s become common place to describe ‘misgendering’ as violence. Even describing it as hate crime as way beyond what it actually is. Words no longer mean much. So I will continue to be sceptical.

I think there are three things here.

One is that trans people will face disadvantage, harm and abuse because their gender expression varies from the norm. I think any attempt to deny that flies against common sense. We live in a misogynist world, and violent men police gender conformity as part of that.

Two is that false stats are thrown about so commonly (the murder rate being the obvious one, though there are several more examples) and some stats are so unreliable (a self-determined record of what counts as a hate incident, even where it could arguably count as one against women) that people are instinctively sceptical.

Thirdly is that the majority of violent crime affects men - both as perpetrator, and as victim (the exception being sexual crime, where most victims are women). It is not women's responsibility to give up our own protections, provisions and rights to protect one group of male people from another. We are not human shields for male violence and abuse.

All three statements are true.

*(the exception being sexual and domestic crime, where most victims are women)

I was thinking about this some more last night while watching an old Derren Brown interview.

This is how the argument goes, isn't it:
'Trans women are women. Trans people are twice as likely to be victims of crime.'

It's the first statement that presents the threat to women's rights. It also has no basis in reality. But it doesn't matter, because everyone's looking at statement 2).

This second statement may be correct but it appears to have no logical connection with 1) so why have they been linked? But again it doesn't matter, because they're already entwined in our heads.

'That's awful,' we say. 'What can we do to help?'