Stats on attack on women by men self identifying as women?

[Bb2019]

Hello everyone,

I've been lurking on this board and generally following the mainstream uk press about trans issues including the JK Rowling debate etc.

I've been shocked with the likes of Mermaids and the Tavistock centre prescribing under 18s life changing treatments.

I'm still trying to understand the implications and form an informed opinion on the use of women only places by trans women. I understand it would make many women uncomfortable if it were obvious.

Do we have any statistics or research done on how often women or girls have been attacked in their own spaces by men passing as trans women and or by trans women? I know it happens anecdotally but how much more likely is it to happen? Is it isolated incidents or is the risk much heightened? Perhaps it's not possible to do this type of research though due to a paucity of data?

Thanks!

The first of your links jj - among the states recording "no problems" is Connecticut, home of Andraya Yarwood and Terri Miller (I think I've got the right names), two trans-identifying teens who've been beating biological females in the 100m and 200m by significant margins. That's a clear violation of equality laws set up to protect women's sports, yet the article claims there have been no problems. There's a case going through the federal courts right now, yet the article says there have been no problems. I think the author maybe hasn't been looking very hard for problems.

@ScrimpshawTheSecond

I want to ask, jj, in what way are transwomen women? What do you think transwomen have in common with women?

Happy to discuss this in good faith.

I'd rather not get bogged down with that on this thread, although happy to comment if there is another thread discussing it. All I'll briefly say is that I can think of quite a few commonalities, most notably being on the end of male sexual violence and objectification, as well as unrealistic pressure to meet patriarchal beauty standards, being undermined (and underpaid) due to gender, and being generally socially treated in much the same way as non trans women in many aspects of life.

But as I say, I'd rather not derail this thread with a long discussion about whether trans women are women and stick to the ops point, which is evidence of the risk of trans inclusion and whether trans women retain male patterns of violence and criminality.

@DianasLasso I think when the study talks about problems it means sexual/physical violence or other forms of assault. I'd argue sport is a different issue.

Okay, I just don't see that this discussion (where we're discussing the difference between, say, cross dressers and transwomen) can really move forward unless that question is answered.

The crux of it is, as said above, some people think that TWAW and should be treated as women. I say they are male and therefore outwith the category.

By 'non transwomen', you mean women?

It specifically mentions the extension of Title IX from sex to gender, which is the specific re-interpretation of law which is fucking over women's sports.

But there's also the broader issue of women's privacy - like the girls' swim team who ended up changing in the janitor's cupboard because of (IIRC) an adult transwomen who insisted on using the open plan changing room at the same time as their swim practise. Something that clearly made the girls uncomfortable, behaviour which, in any other male-bodied individual, would open them up to justifiable accusations of indecent exposure and/or voyeurism.

But because the author of the article is fully signed up to "some women have penises, get over it", behaviour which we don't tolerate in other male bodied people just gets air brushed out of the record.

No recorded instances because behaviours have been redefined such that the behaviour doesn't count any more.

It's Orwellian.

I mean, really the only logical conclusion to TWAW is removing all sex categories and all sex segregation. Otherwise, where can we draw the lines? Sex offenders - not allowed in women's spaces? Cross dressers - not allowed in women's spaces? So how do we differentiate between, say Alex Drummond and Pips Bunce? What about sports? Rugby? Wrestling? Where and how do we draw these lines?

The only way we can preserve the protections women have fought long and hard for is by sex segregation. I can't see another workable solution - other than perhaps third spaces.

I think it's important to remember that all the subjects of the early Swedish studies by Dhejne et al were people who had had full genital surgery, so what would have been called transsexuals.

It's almost impossible to extrapolate from those individuals to today's enormously expanded trans umbrella, whether we look at levels of desistance or patterns of criminality.

While Dhejne appears to somewhat contradict her 2011 findings in the Transadvocate article (and it is a shame that she doesn't seem to have produced an academic clarification) she is emphatically not saying that transwomen in the second cohort commit no crimes / have female pattern criminality. Instead they exhibit a pattern of criminality many orders higher than that of 'ciswomen' just maybe not quite as much as 'cismen'.

There might be some interesting links in the following, OP.

speakupforwomen.nz/sufw_essays/reasons-for-safeguarding-concerns-with-self-id/

As I say, I didn't really post to discuss whether trans women or women or discuss women's sports, but really to answer the ops questions about evidence of a possible safety risk due to trans inclusion. I think that can be discussed in terms of the evidence to date without addressing the broader questions simply because the evidence addresses what has actually happened, regardless of how people see themselves, or what exactly constitutes a trans woman.

@jj1968

The truth is there isn't any evidence either way on this, although there has been work done in the US which has shown that trans inclusive policies have not caused an increase in risk to women. And it does seen counter intuitive to me to claim trans women retain male pattern criminality, I mean where are the trans gangsters, football hooligans, terrorists or serial killers? Even the (awful imo) transcrime website can only find a tiny handful of trans women (who were tried and convicted as trans women as opposed to occassional cross dressers) convicted of serious offences, when around around 10,000 men are convicted of sexual offences annuallly and thousands more for violent offences.

"Beate Schmidt (born Wolfgang Schmidt October 5, 1966) is a German serial killer. From October 1989 to April 1991, Schmidt murdered five women and an infant. Schmidt is a trans woman." Various locations in Germany.

"Donna Perry, formerly Douglas Perry, is a transgender woman accused of murdering Yolanda Sapp, Nickie Low and Kathleen Brisbois in 1990." Spokane, WA, USA

Matthew Harks (Fraser Valley Institute in B.C., released). Tara Pearsall (Fraser Valley Institute in B.C.), Fallon Aubee (Fraser Valley Institute in B.C.). Tara Desousa (Fraser Valley Institute in B.C.). John Boulachanis (only denied transfer thus far because of flight risk not because of risk to women). A serial pedophile. A serial sex offender. A contract killer. A child killer. A murderer. All either seeking to be housed in women's prisons or already residing in women's prisons with unreasonable proximity to mother/baby blocks. Violent male offenders housed with non-violent female offenders and babies/toddlers.

Never. Happens.

Okay, then how are you defining a transwoman?

So first its 'find me a criminal' and when the website full of criminals is offered the goalposts are moved and its 'find me a serial killer'.

Sorry - I misread your last sentence. I don't see how you can discuss the risks associated with transwomen in women's spaces without defining both of those terms.

[quote ANewCreation]I think it's important to remember that all the subjects of the early Swedish studies by Dhejne et al were people who had had full genital surgery, so what would have been called transsexuals.

It's almost impossible to extrapolate from those individuals to today's enormously expanded trans umbrella, whether we look at levels of desistance or patterns of criminality.

While Dhejne appears to somewhat contradict her 2011 findings in the Transadvocate article (and it is a shame that she doesn't seem to have produced an academic clarification) she is emphatically not saying that transwomen in the second cohort commit no crimes / have female pattern criminality. Instead they exhibit a pattern of criminality many orders higher than that of 'ciswomen' just maybe not quite as much as 'cismen'.

There might be some interesting links in the following, OP.

speakupforwomen.nz/sufw_essays/reasons-for-safeguarding-concerns-with-self-id/[/quote]
I agree it's quite unclear what Dhejne means, I think somewhere else I saw it discussed that post 1990 both trans and the control groups crime levels were the same. This could be because trans men's patterns were elevated to the mens control groups (a finding of the study), and trans women's decreased to the level of the women's control group and so it balanced out, or that trans mens crimes were slightly lower and trans womens slightly higher. We don;t know is the truth, maybe Djhene does and thats what she refers to on the transadvocate site, but we cant say for sure. What we can say is that not knowing is not the same as proving something, and more importantly, its such a small sample size, without adequate weighting, based on data thats almost 50 years old in some cases.

I don;t think it's fair or legitimate to use this study as evidence of male pattern criminality when it shows nothing of the sort and I see it used all the time. And I think it's important that is pointed out that it is incorrect. If someone was trying to make a claim of increased criminality amongst a certain ethnic group or other marginalised group based on such weak evidence then I think most people might question the motivations of those making the claims. I can understand why many trans women may have similiar suspicions when people claim a tiny and imperfect study based on a handful of violent crimes decades ago is used to portray them as a threat. I think it would take a lot of heat out of this discussion (on both sides) if people didnt misrepresent evidence in a way which could be construed as hurtful or socially damaging

To clarify, for the purposes of my question, I was looking for evidence relating to genetic males (XY) who access women (XX) spaces and who identify or pass off as trans women. So not gender identify.

@jj1968 think you make very valid points re Sweden study.

There would be less heat if we could keep accurate statistics in the first place.

@Thelnebriati

If someone can show me evidence that transwomen are no more of a threat than women, I will be happy to hear that. As said above, before one removes protections, it's necessary to prove that the protection is no longer needed.

Explanation of the statistics in the Swedish study here,;
fairplayforwomen.com/criminality/

The Swedish research may not have proved definitively that its small group of transexual people shared the same rate of criminality as others born the same sex as them. However, neither did it prove that they didn't .Surely the evidence which is required is evidence of a substantial difference in criminality ; a difference comparable to the female rate of criminality, between male people who live as males and those males who identify as women . Until such a difference is proved there should be no question of including Transwomen in female only places

@FireUnderTheHand I'm not saying it never, of course some trans women have committed awful crimes, the question is whether trans womet have male patterns of criminality and there is no evidence that they do.

There's no evidence that they don't.

@334bu that's my view - let's be cautious here. Was hoping there would be more solid evidence (of either to be honest - happy to be proved wrong - should have stated that in my uniting post) but this thread suggests not (yet?).

Just wanted to say a big thank you to everyone who took the time to respond and add to the debate. It's been very helpful.

@ScrimpshawTheSecond

There's no evidence that they don't.

This is true, but I don't think it's correct to assume what is true of a set, those born physically male, is true of a subset of that set. As an example, there is no published evidence I'm aware of that shows gay men as a group are not as sexually violent towards women as men overall but it doesn't seem very likely. And likewise lots of trans women are not attracted to women, lots of trans women take drugs which can eliminate sexual function and desire and some trans women don't have a penis. Additionally there don't seem to be be many trans women involved in gang violence, organised crime, terror, street fighting and many of the other crimes that often land men in jail. So I don’t think it's unreasonable to say that the claim trans women retain male pattern criminality requires some evidence, and more importantly that the evidence that is often used to claim this is invalid.