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!

Excuse me while I get fucking MAD about the abuse of statistics by the trans lobby.

First, Djehne et al. They DID NOT find that post-1990 transexuals are criminal at the same rate as women.
They lumped trans men and trans women together in the post 1990 group as FPFW pointed out. The only part of that study which directly compared transwomen with women showed TW 40 times more likely to commit a violent crime.

And even more importantly, there aren't that many violent crime convictions in this study. The main reason they didn't find a difference in the second group is that when they divide the sample into two, N is too small to detect the difference in crime rates.

The trans lobby have lied about this consistently. Djehne et al didn't detect "no difference." They just failed to detect a difference. When you don't find something, it doesn't mean it isn't there. It could be just because you haven't got your glasses on. In this case dividing the data into two groups is the equivalent of taking your glasses off so you can't see the elephant in the room.

And speaking of, that stupid study about bathrooms and crime rates. Exact same deal. They failed to detect a difference in reported crimes after trans bathroom laws were passed. Is that because there is no difference? Or because the methods they used didn't have the statistical power to detect a difference? No normal statistical study would report "we found no result" as if it was an actual result, and if it did it wouldn't get published,. but special rules apply to trans statistics.

I've seen this exact fallacy in trans-agenda neuroscience too! Well, our tests didn't find anything so we'll assume this proves our point. All you're proving is that you don't understand statistics! I never see that fallacy in any other topic, I swear to god. I never wonder if the authors of a non trans related paper might have deliberately taken their statistical glasses off (reduced the power of their analysis) because in normal academic topics authors aren't incentivised to not find the elephant in the room.

But when it comes to all things trans, I guess if their findings identify as valid that's good enough. Thank fuck this trend of not questioning TRA-friendly bullshit statistics has been comprehensively called out, with that backlash to the AJP article.

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.

Have you got stats for any of these claims? Very, very few transwomen are missing a penis, iirc, and I've not ever seen any stats for the preceding two statements.

When we're talking about risk of violence, sexual violence, and until I see evidence that transwomen are somehow different than males (I can't see any so far) then we err on the side of retaining protection. Otherwise women are exposed to risk, even if that risk is unknown, you can't just remove protections before assessing it.

I'm not sure about that @Kantastic, we found no result is a perfectly valid and important conclusion to a piece of research.

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.

Judging by newspaper articles and the prison statistics there do seem to be quite a lot of self-identified trans women involved in sexual crimes. I'm sure you have some reason for thinking that newspaper articles and prison statistics don't count as evidence, but they're certainly enough evidence to overturn any presumption that trans women have female pattern criminality. Whether they have exactly the same crime patterns as other males is a moot point, they shouldn't be placed with women.

I'm not sure about that @Kantastic, we found no result is a perfectly valid and important conclusion to a piece of research.

Sure, but that'smissing the point. You don't present "no result" as if it IS a result. Unless you're studying something trans related and then all bets are off.

@ScrimpshawTheSecond I'm on my phone now and it's late so I'm not able to go hunting for evidence but I feel reasonably confident suggesting trans women are more likely to have taken hormones, had gender reassignment surgery and be exclusively androphilic then men and so those things alone would be likely to produce a difference in offending patterns.

@Kantastic

I'm not sure about that @Kantastic, we found no result is a perfectly valid and important conclusion to a piece of research.

Sure, but that'smissing the point. You don't present "no result" as if it IS a result. Unless you're studying something trans related and then all bets are off.

I'm not sure that's what either study did. The Swedish research wasn't even studying trans vs non trans offending patterns, the only reason the author felt she had to comment was because it was being misrepresented to claim it was.

I'm not sure that's what either study did.

Regardless of your certainty levels, it is exactly what the bathroom study did.

You are correct that Djehne et al didn't do that in the study - however Djehne did it in her interview that seemed to contradict the study findings re bathroom crimes. Hope that helps!

lol extra "bathroom" in there. I meant

Djehne did it in her interview that seemed to contradict the study findings re violent crimes. Hope that helps!

[quote jj1968]@ScrimpshawTheSecond I'm on my phone now and it's late so I'm not able to go hunting for evidence but I feel reasonably confident suggesting trans women are more likely to have taken hormones, had gender reassignment surgery and be exclusively androphilic then men and so those things alone would be likely to produce a difference in offending patterns.[/quote]
80% of transwomen have had no surgery. Almost half the trans prison population are incarcerated for sexual offences.

How many transgender inmates are there? www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42221629

So I don't know why you're 'reasonably confident' because the facts show you're wrong

Almost half the trans prison population are incarcerated for sexual offences.

I suppose to be fair Clymene that IS a difference in offending patterns between transwomen and other males. Although it doesn't exactly support this person's point!

@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!

You need to look outside the UK for these types of attacks. They are so common in the Middle East and Asia - which is why bathroom attendants (and security guards) are still used in posh hotels / private schools.

@clymene I'm not sure they do but I'll have to come back to this tomorrow as I'm on my phone now and off to bed soon

Kantastic
First, Djehne et al. They DID NOT find that post-1990 transexuals are criminal at the same rate as women.

Absolutely!

Dhejne: "In this study, male-to-female individuals had a higher risk for criminal convictions compared to female controls but not compared to male controls. This suggests that the sex reassignment procedure neither increased nor decreased the risk for criminal offending in male-to-females."

There’s a common theme with this, it’s seen in sport as well as crime:

TRAs: “show us evidence that trans women are just as criminal as men, even though they’re women!”

Women’s rights campaigners: “Ok here. Now, why don’t YOU show US the evidence that shows trans women are NOT just as likely to commit crime compared to other males?”

TRAs: ....

TRAs: “Show us the evidence that trans women are bigger, stronger and retain male advantages that mean they shouldn’t participate in women’s sport.”

Women’s rights campaigners: “[sigh] Ok, here. Now, why don’t YOU show US the evidence that trans women have lost their male advantage at some point and that competing would be fair?”

TRAs: ....

And so on, and so on.

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

Personally I don’t care if transwomen commit crimes at a comparable rate to women.

I still don’t want to see transwomen taking places on all women’s shortlists, or winning women’s prizes or awards, or being included in female statistics for crimes, pay rates, job types / titles, board inclusion, winning girls scholarships, etc etc etc

And I still want to retain single sex spaces as the status quo because it’s what I want, and I shouldn’t have to justify my reasons or prove I’ve suffered from male violence.

If the status quo needs to be changed, then TRAs need to present compelling evidence, that works universally for all women, and girls, not just for (generally) privileged western non-religious women.

And no I never agreed with apartheid. This isn’t that.

"Personally I don't care if Transwomen commit crimes at a comparable rate to women..."

I agree with you that it is not only about the safety of women when being forced to share spaces with people who are male.
To change the status quo and include some people who are male in any aspect of female only provision can only happen if there is incontrovertible evidence that that group of males are as different from other males as females are to those males both physically and behaviourally. In the case of sport that would mean evidence that they did not have male bodies and as that is impossible there should be no question of this group being included in female sport.
This would also apply in all contexts where special provision is made for women either to ensure their safety, privacy and dignity because they have female bodies or to mitigate discrimination resulting from having a female body and its potential reproductive role , e.g. sex discrimination law , all women shortlists, prizes etc. Anyone who does not have a female body cannot be included here.

It's a good point, Itslate, that 'not being sexually assaulted' is a very low bar. At no point is this argument allowing for the wishes of many women who do not wish to share spaces like hospital wards, changing rooms, prisons etc with male bodied people. The reasons may be varied - for some it might be pride, for some, religious reasons, for some a fear of males or a trauma response.

For all the same reasons, really, that a transwoman can apparently not use the male facilities. All of those reasons apply for women. So how come the wishes, feelings, safety of transwomen count, but not those of women?

jj1968

That's not quite what happened.

The study was originally used to claim that people who identify as trans and who transition have higher mortality rates than others, and that suicide risk goes up after transitioning. The secondary claim was that the study proved that those who transition commit more crimes than the rest of the population. This was used to argue that people should not be allowed to transition. (A position I disagree with.)

That's what the author was interviewed about. Desperate to defend her work she set about refuting these claims and in the process, inexplicably, ended up misrepresenting parts of the results of her own study.

Contrary to your argument, the study was indeed set up to compare criminality between those who transitioned and those who didn't.

Contrary to your claim, no data was provided about crimes committed by those who transitioned prior to transitioning at all. It did not compare rates of criminality in pre- and post-op transsexuals but only between post-op transsexuals and control groups.

The study did indeed adjust the results, and it did so for mental health issues in recognition of the fact that those who transition have very high co-morbidities with mental health issues. (And there are higher rates of criminality in people who suffer from MH issues.)

It then presented the findings in a measure called an adjusted hazard risk or HR for short.

It found - for the reasons you mention - that post-op transsexuals were more likely to commit crimes than controls but only in the earlier time period when conditions for transsexuals were worse than they were for the second time period.

The study found that for the second time period, post-op transsexuals were possibly less likely to be convicted of crimes than controls of the same biological sex, but as they did not disaggregate the data by sex or violent crimes, no further conclusion could be drawn about the latter period.

Quotes from the study:

Abstract

Results:
[...]
Female-to-males, but not male-to-females, had a higher risk for criminal convictions than their respective birth sex controls.

Conclusions: Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.

From the study itself

Crime rate
Transsexual individuals were at increased risk of being convicted for any crime or violent crime after sex reassignment (Table 2); this was, however, only significant in the group who underwent sex reassignment before 1989.

In this study, male-to-female individuals had a higher risk for criminal convictions compared to female controls but not compared to male controls. This suggests that the sex reassignment procedure neither increased nor decreased the risk for criminal offending in male-to-females.

[my emphasis]

In summary then, the study showed exactly what we say it showed: male to female (post-op) transsexuals retained male patterns of criminality. They pose the exact same risk as all other males. They pose a much higher risk than female controls.

This is also born out by the rate of conviction for sexual crimes for male GRC-holders in the UK, which again showed convictions at the rate predicted for males.

It must be emphasised that these figures concern only post-op transsexuals (for the Swedish study) or those who have a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria (for male GRC-holders).

There is absolutely no question about the risk posed by males who merely self-identify as trans. Claiming a female identity does not magically lower the risk a male poses to females.

The statistics discussed above demonstrate that even a medical diagnosis and/or fully transitioning does not change the risk a male poses either.

(There are also two US studies showing males who identify as trans retain a male pattern criminality and male pattern sexuality. There may be more. Every single one I've seen shows that claiming a trans identity does not change the risk males pose to females).

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.

It is irrelevant what the author of a study claims afterwards. Unless a study is withdrawn, it must be judged on its own merits, both in methodology and results.

This study showed unequivocally that the cohort of male transsexuals analysed were at the exact same risk of being convicted of a crime as the male control group.

While it did show for the early cohort that male transsexuals were more likely to be convicted than the male control group, that was not true for the later cohort.

The study explicitly notes that male transsexuals were compared to controls from their birth sex. No confusion.

Male rate of crime compared to male rate of crime. The control groups were always compared to the cohort of the same sex.

For the avoidance of doubt that means male transsexuals were compared to male controls and female to female.

And no, the study did not find that during the early period female transsexuals committed crime at the same rate as the male control group. It found that compared to female controls, their risk was 700% higher of being convicted of a violent crime but 40% lower compared to male controls. For all crimes the figures were 400% higher and 30% lower respectively.

As for the second period, here is what we do know:

The study compared risk on the basis of sex. The second time period shows the risk for both sexes together to be just slightly lower overall (10% less likely to be convicted than control groups of both sexes).

Because the male risk of being convicted is so much higher than the female one, the one thing we can say with confidence, is that the study conclusively showed that not even male post-op transsexuals reached female rates of criminality.

And at no point in the study is there even the slightest suggestion that as you claim "trans women's decreased to the level of the women's control group". They did not.

Very helpfully, if you dig into the accompanying information (not mentioned directly in the study) you'll find two tables provided as Word documents where the authors compare outcomes for the transsexual cohorts first to their "final" sex and then to their birth sex.

This shows that compared to female controls, male transsexuals over the entire period are six and a half times more likely to be convicted of any crime and 18 times more likely to be convicted of violent crime.

Unfortunately, although the authors calculated the risk for each time period separately, they do not provide the numbers for the latter period by sex.

However, very helpfully Dhejne herself clarified the issue in an AMA on Reddit in 2017. You can read her full comment here.

In this comment she confirms that male transsexuals exhibited a male pattern of criminality for the entire period.

She says:

If one is only intrested in transwomen data is only available for the whole period. For only assigned med who had transition 1973-2003 they had committed more crimes than cis women and more violent crime than cis women. [...] Having a male pattern means that they did not differ regarding any crime or violent crime if compared with cis men.

In the interest of a respectful debate in good faith, may I suggest therefore that it would be helpful if you could read the study again, familiarise yourself with the actual findings and clear up your confusion so that you do not risk spreading misinformation as you have in this thread.

@CharlieParley

"The study found that for the second time period, post-op transsexuals were possibly less likely to be convicted of crimes than controls of the same biological sex, but as they did not disaggregate the data by sex or violent crimes, no further conclusion could be drawn about the latter period."

That was my point. As you say no conclusion can be drawn. As such it cannot be used as evidence of retention of male pattern offending, and given the tiny sample and the fact the data is decades old then it really doesn't tell us anything about comparison of crime rates between men and trans women today. I think if you are going to make claims about levels of criminality amongst a certain group of people then the evidence should be robust, and if it isn't, and in this case it's non existent, then you shouldn't be surprised if people question what your motives are.

However if there are other studies from the states I'd be very interested to read them if you could provide a link. I've never come across them.

@CharlieParley

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.

It is irrelevant what the author of a study claims afterwards. Unless a study is withdrawn, it must be judged on its own merits, both in methodology and results.

This study showed unequivocally that the cohort of male transsexuals analysed were at the exact same risk of being convicted of a crime as the male control group.

While it did show for the early cohort that male transsexuals were more likely to be convicted than the male control group, that was not true for the later cohort.

The study explicitly notes that male transsexuals were compared to controls from their birth sex. No confusion.

Male rate of crime compared to male rate of crime. The control groups were always compared to the cohort of the same sex.

For the avoidance of doubt that means male transsexuals were compared to male controls and female to female.

And no, the study did not find that during the early period female transsexuals committed crime at the same rate as the male control group. It found that compared to female controls, their risk was 700% higher of being convicted of a violent crime but 40% lower compared to male controls. For all crimes the figures were 400% higher and 30% lower respectively.

As for the second period, here is what we do know:

The study compared risk on the basis of sex. The second time period shows the risk for both sexes together to be just slightly lower overall (10% less likely to be convicted than control groups of both sexes).

Because the male risk of being convicted is so much higher than the female one, the one thing we can say with confidence, is that the study conclusively showed that not even male post-op transsexuals reached female rates of criminality.

And at no point in the study is there even the slightest suggestion that as you claim "trans women's decreased to the level of the women's control group". They did not.

Very helpfully, if you dig into the accompanying information (not mentioned directly in the study) you'll find two tables provided as Word documents where the authors compare outcomes for the transsexual cohorts first to their "final" sex and then to their birth sex.

This shows that compared to female controls, male transsexuals over the entire period are six and a half times more likely to be convicted of any crime and 18 times more likely to be convicted of violent crime.

Unfortunately, although the authors calculated the risk for each time period separately, they do not provide the numbers for the latter period by sex.

However, very helpfully Dhejne herself clarified the issue in an AMA on Reddit in 2017. You can read her full comment here.

In this comment she confirms that male transsexuals exhibited a male pattern of criminality for the entire period.

She says:

If one is only intrested in transwomen data is only available for the whole period. For only assigned med who had transition 1973-2003 they had committed more crimes than cis women and more violent crime than cis women. [...] Having a male pattern means that they did not differ regarding any crime or violent crime if compared with cis men.

In the interest of a respectful debate in good faith, may I suggest therefore that it would be helpful if you could read the study again, familiarise yourself with the actual findings and clear up your confusion so that you do not risk spreading misinformation as you have in this thread.

I think this is the most relevent that of that answer

"However even if I can't say how it is for trans women specific one could see that if the whole group (tran women and trans men) are displayed together there is a very postive time trend. So after 1989 the transgender men and women together did not differ from cis gender men and women regarding comitting any crime or violent crime. This means that the trana population was not more criminal then the cis population after 1989. The actual number of any crimes for the transgroup is for 1973-2003 60, for 1973-1988 38 and for 1989-2003 22. The numbers of violent crimes are for 1972-2003 14, for 1973-1988 10 1989-2003 4. "

I agree it is unclear, but I also don't think it's that important when you consider that for the latter period, in terms of violent crimes, there were just four committed (and even then some of the data is 30 years old). I'm sorry but claiming this study proves (or even supports) evidence of male pattern violence, based on a study of just four crimes over two decades ago is outrageous,. You'd tear trans activist apart on here if they tried to make a claim based on such scant data.

I think if you are going to make claims about levels of criminality amongst a certain group of people then the evidence should be robust, and if it isn't, and in this case it's non existent, then you shouldn't be surprised if people question what your motives are.

Well, precisely. It is not us who have to prove that identifying as trans lowers the risk a male poses to females. It is the side that claims it does which has to provide the evidence. So, where is it?

if the whole group (tran women and trans men) are displayed together there is a very postive time trend.

gee. I wonder why that could be. A positive trend if the whole group are displayed together. And only if the whole group are displayed together. Trans women AND trans men. Both sexes. Gosh. It's a puzzler, isn't it? Why would there be a reduction in criminality over time in the group [transwomen+transmen] lumped all together? Absolutely racking my brains here. But I've thought of some questions that might clarify the situation.

How did the sex ratio of transitioners change between the pre-1990 group and the post-1990 group?

What is the correlation of sex with criminality?

Well, to be fair, the positive trend is indeed just that - post-op transsexuals went from being much more likely to be convicted of a crime to share the same risk as everyone else. That's because they had far more support in the later period.

I do find it amusing that a study that showed male transsexuals had no more risk of being convicted than all other males is so vehemently cast as unreliable now, when that very same poster had no problem with it when they believed it proved their point.

The fact is that this study is one of the best of its kind, comprehensive, without selection bias and with a sound methodology. Alas, it doesn't support that poster's point, so it must now be discredited. The same with its author confirming that throughout the study period male transsexuals exhibited a male pattern of criminality. Doesn't count. It did count when she inadvertently misrepresented the findings, but not when she accurately reflects them.

Let me just recap for the lurkers, because this study is notorious for being misrepresented and now preferably used to disprove that males who identify as trans pose the same risk as all other males.

What was misrepresented?

The result showed worse outcomes for post-op transsexuals compared to birth sex controls. It was claimed this proved transition was unsafe and should therefore not be supported.

The result also showed post-op transsexuals were more likely to be convicted of crimes than birth sex controls. It was claimed this showed that post-op transsexuals were more dangerous than birth sex controls and more likely to commit crimes.

The truth:

The study showed that post-op transsexuals were more vulnerable than birth sex controls. The reasons were various, but transition itself was not proven to be the cause of worsened outcomes.

The study showed that rates of criminality normalised over the course of the study period. In the beginning, post-op transsexuals did indeed show a higher risk of being convicted than their birth sex controls, but again transition itself or claiming a trans identity was not shown to be the cause. By the end, the study showed post-op transsexuals were as likely to be convicted as their birth sex controls.

How to represent the study results fairly:

It suggests better support leads to better outcomes for post-op transsexuals. And while support had improved since the 70s, it still needed improvement by 2003.

It also shows that if post-op transsexuals are better supported in society, they do not pose a higher risk of being convicted of a crime than their birth sex controls.

It also showed - as confirmed by the study author - that as a group, male transsexuals retain a male pattern criminality, posing the same risk as all other males. Furthermore it showed they pose a much higher risk than females (6.6 to 18 times higher, depending on the crime).