Help - looking for reliable stats on violence against trans people

[crunchermuncher]

I wonder if anyone can help - I've been discussing the need for women only spaces with a friend. He is supportive however seems to have bought the narrative that trans people are more at risk than women.

Where does this come from?
I have been searching for stats about this for days. I have found info on fair play for women about murder rates which seem broadly the same between the 2 groups but of course this doesn't capture other forms of violence and abuse.

Can anyone link me to any studies?

Has this belief come from women not being a minority group (we are an oppressed majority) and therefore are somehow less deserving of support?

Do you need stats? Aren't they two different issues?

It's men being violent to people who present differently. They need to sort their own house out.

The ladies is not a sanctuary for people who feel unsafe in the gents.

Sorry - ignore me. it's just frustration talking. I'm sure someone will be along with some stats and links any minute.

Don’t forget that ‘abuse’ (or ‘violence’ in the loosest sense if the word) is counted on a whole range of words and behaviour, whereas a woman can get groped/ catcalled/ threatened with rape and murder - and it’s not counted at all as being down to her sex.

It's his assertion, he needs to find the stats to back it up.

Two women a week are murdered in the U.K. by their male partners or ex partners.

And the lockdown stats are higher arent they? And yet... women’s violence isn’t seen as important as someone crossing swords on twitter and hurting someone’s feelings.

Erm, why not ask him to show you the stats that make him believe transwomen are more at risk (from male violence) than women? He's the one making the claim; he should substantiate it, surely?

See Posy Parker on the 'transwomen higher murder rate' statistic being thrown about by activists that turned out to refer only to trans sex workers in Brazilian favellas. Tragic and wrong, of course, but nobody had the comparable stat for non-trans sex workers, so... 🤷🏼‍♀️

What we DO know from UK crime statistics is that there is a higher chance of a transwoman committing a murder than being the victim of one, though this may be skewed by suspected/convicted murderers transitioning in custody when their motives and sincerity could be unclear.

medium.com/@evastanford/transwomen-sexual-offenders-a-closer-look-6c507d9e2414

fairplayforwomen.com/trans-murder-rates/?fbclid=IwAR0pC_JD0ia4S_xONvsM7LNw5AjdvZzWSRV8pqaRWIZCRafV2-Zt0I8M_GI

fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-prisoners/

So men are more likely to be killed than women in England from that data

I agree with all the above. But I'm not going to change anyones mind without evidence to back up my annoyance at the 'most oppressed group ever' argument. My feelings are, rightly, not enough to base a logical argument on.

And it was me complaining about the issue to him to start with, so I think the onus is on me to provide data. He 'read it somewhere' which I know is a rubbish answer and being a scientist he knows and acknowledges that too, but I'm in the same position of feeling like 'I read it somewhere' (that women are actually more at risk) but can't locate where. We can't all remember the source of every bit of info we've absorbed over our lives and we'd like to actually sit down and examine some data to see where this common belief has come from and whether it's purely Twitter nonsense about 'literal violence', or whether more to it than that.

Also, I want to write to my MP and want to marshal a robust argument before I put pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard).

Interestingly, I did put the argument forward that the problem is men's violence and not women's problem to solve, which was a perspective he hadn't considered before, and thought that it made a lot of sense. I don't blame him for not seeing that initially, it's not a view that gets much airtime. Because violence against women is so normalised in our society.

Just joined that's not really relevant to this discussion, we're talking about male violence against women. Men do not need safe spaces from women; it's nearly always men perpetrating the violence whichever sex it's aimed at.

No I know, it just surprised me from that data! I am mega gender critical but I find the race to the bottom of who has it worst quite frustrating.
I personally think that in the toilet scenario many men would be more likely to batter a man who is trying to live as a woman, as they would excuse it as just a fight, not ‘woman beating’.
And I hate that in this debate I know have to add something like “not to deny the extreme prevalence of male violence against women”.

The problem you face OP is that much of the belief of "most oppressed group ever" comes from reports about high levels of "hate crime" directed at trans people. Here's an example:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48756370 (the Analysis section is by the BBC LGBT Correspondent Ben Hunte who often operates as a propagandist)

However, when "hate crime" statistics are self-reported, these kinds of reports get added to the statistics:

www.faircop.org.uk/fruit-of-the-poison-tree/

In terms of having something clearly defined that can be compared across groups, it seems that murder rate is the most useful metric.

Here is a study.
It's pretty old but things havn't changed much.

www.pfc.org.uk/pdf/EngenderedPenalties.pdf

JustJoined apologies, I misunderstood and thought you were a MRA complaining that men have it worse etc etc.

Yes the race to the bottom is very frustrating. Its whataboutery. I also think it's dangerous because it changes the focus from what different groups need into who is more deserving, and we all know that women usually lose out in that kind of hierarchy because society sees our issues as natural, just the way it is, and we're constantly having to challenge that. Also identifying one group as 'less in need' quickly becomes misinterpreted as 'not needing at all'.

Interestingly, I did put the argument forward that the problem is men's violence and not women's problem to solve, which was a perspective he hadn't considered before, and thought that it made a lot of sense.
I think this is the crux of it. Yes there is data - as I recall, the last figures I saw for the UK reported less than one transwoman murdered a year over the last decade. But it's not a competition and no violence is acceptable.

The point is that women should not be expected to protect other groups from male violence. Until men sort it out, all we can do is keep ourselves safe as best we can.

I've been discussing the need for women only spaces with a friend. He is supportive however seems to have bought the narrative that trans people are more at risk than women.

Where does this come from?

Ask him. He is making a claim. Where does he say this comes from? Why does he believe this? If he wants you to believe this, he needs to find some evidence. If he has none, why should you believe it or run around trying to find evidence to the contrary?

Yes I think what I find so unacceptable is the idea that it's another job for women to do, taking care of everyone else rather than ourselves, add it to the bloody list of all our other responsibilities that society would have us take on (while simultaneously giving no value to the doing of those tasks). The 'just be nice' narrative is feeding the idea that all women, whether we're mothers or not, should take on that role for everyone else.

Thanks to all who have provided links, I will check them out. Any more info gratefully received!

Here's one site

tgeu.org/transgender-day-of-visibility-2016-trans-murder-monitoring-update/

Interestingly, it reports 229 murders of transgender people in Mexico between 1st of January 2008 and the 31st of December 2015, when something like a 225,000 Mexicans in general were murdered. Making being transgender absolutely the safest demographic by far.

The problem of male violence against other men should not be addressed by removing those at risk from male only spaces. Why should gender non-confirming men lose access to male spaces? It’s punishing the victim and the perpetrators are validated.

Women are not human shields.

If he believes the answer is everyone who thinks they are at increased risk in male single sex spaces should use the women’s facilities with zero gate keeping, what does he think that does to the risk? It’s not a magic space free of risk because the sign on the door says women. It’s a space of reduced risk because it does not include men. Look at the stats for sexual offences in mixed and single sex changing areas.

No one wants trans people to be at risk. All the data out there clearly shows that making spaces mixed sex increases risk so why is it touted as the solution?

old crone because I want to change his mind. He's not asking me to change mine or justify myself.

But similarly the argument 'because I read it somewhere' isn't going to effectively challenge his preconceptions about this.

I don't HAVE to come up with the info - but I'm the one that wants to discuss it. I'm the one that feels strongly that the prevailing perception is incorrect. And as a logical person, it bothers me not to be able to back up my position with robust data.

I get your point but this is for me, not for him.

Also, I want to write to my MP and want to marshal a robust argument before I put pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard).

Sorry, hadn't read your other posts before posting.

Men beating up men who present in a feminine way is a form of gay bashing. Most people believe that most transwomen are attracted to men. We don't allow gay men to use women's spaces to escape violent homophobic men, so why should we let the men who think they are women do so?

Most (nearly all) 'transwomen' have penises, so they are most definitely men, because women don't have penises.

(This probably isn't the best line to use with your MP, but it's worth keeping in mind all the time that people can't change sex. A man who believes himself to be a woman is still a man. No amount of wishful thinking or surgery will change that.)

I suspect there are no actually useful statistics unfortunately. There is no definition of trans, so without that the number of trans people can’t be calculated, so the rate of anything including violence can’t be calculated.
There seem to be no statistics that calculate “violence” consistently for different groups. There are surveys that count it for one group, and in some literal violence can even include a mum not wanting to order dc to call her Soon To Be Ex “mum” too. There is no consistent methodologies. That’s always the clue in reading a news article; is one metric from one source (eg an internet survey) being compared to another (e.g police records).

The death certificates in the UK are generally prepared quite professionally, although possibly suicide is understated out of sympathy for the deceased’s loved ones. As mentioned already, murder rates for trans people although sadly too high, are probably lower than UK averages unless the count of trans people in the UK is much lower than most groups claim,

Why would trans people have more violence directed at them? How would the violent people know they were trans?

Look - if violence is counted as someone saying ‘sir/miss’ in the wrong context - no matter what the person actually looks like - then that gives a good indication of the ‘amount’.

Plus the stats they love the quote are often those of trans women in South America (just look at the stats for murder of women there too whilst you are at it) and there is a correlation with rates and sex workers.