5% of participants in women's prison research were trans - Lancet journal refuses to publish letter questioning statistics

[InvisibleDragon]

Saw this thread on Twitter and am so upset:
twitter.com/JoPhoenix1/status/1430843096925970436?s=19

The precis is that:

• The Lancet published this paper on the relationship between head injury and violent crime in women in the Scottish prison service

www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(21)00082-1/fulltext

• According to the paper's methods section, 5 of the 109 female prisoners who took part in the study identified as trans women (about 5%)

Of the 355 women incarcerated in the four prisons we recruited from, 109 (31%) expressed an interest in being part of the study and were seen by researchers, and all were deemed eligible to take part. Five of these individuals identified as transgender women.

• Jo Phoenix and some other researchers tried to submit a letter pointing out the methodological flaw that sex-based male and female offending patterns are very different, so having 5% of participants from the other sex class might affect the results
• The Lancet editorial team initially agreed to publish the letter, then retracted, saying that the "consensus view" of the editorial team was that "the numbers involved were not thought likely to have influenced the outcome of the study as a whole".

What fresh hell is this??

So 5% of participants in a study on female prisoners were trans women (biologically male). Is that representative of the female prison estate as a whole? It's certainly interesting that whilst less than 1% of the UK population identify as trans, they make up 5% of a population of female prisoners with a conviction for a violent offence.

But I just feel so speechless that such a highly regarded medical research journal has just utterly silenced discussion about the meaning of these statistics. This stuff matters. If we can't name biological reality in actual scientific research, none of the research has meaning. The single sentence from the article quoted above is the only mention in the whole article that some of the women in the study were trans. It's not mentioned in the discussion, the limitations, anywhere. How can we do science if everything we write is skewed by this ideology?

This has completely shattered me this morning. I'm actually crying. This is cargo cult science. It looks superficially cotrect, but the meaning is gone.

Incidentally, this essay by Richard Feynman on scientific integrity and "not fooling ourselves" is where I got the concept of cargo cult science from:
calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm

Ah, well, if you have a "consensus view", no point actually breaking down the data to investigate.

Might disrupt the lovely consensus.

It just makes the research nonsense. 5% is a small amount but might tip a particular result into being statistically significant. Presumably they have looked at the data again with or without the 5% to see if it made any difference to the results.

@Zandathepanda

It just makes the research nonsense. 5% is a small amount but might tip a particular result into being statistically significant. Presumably they have looked at the data again with or without the 5% to see if it made any difference to the results.

I'm at the point honestly where I just assume that if they're trying to shut down normal debate about data and the ways in which the methodology could be flawed in areas like this, then they have done this analysis and it's not good for the TRA side of the debate.

If the 5% biologically male made no difference to the results they'd be perfectly willing to discuss that.

(In detail with specific analysis and explained clearly how the data looks with the 5% biological male and without - not a hand waving 'we don't think women are important nor any women's concerns so go away')

want to hear*

(sigh)

Just shows the power of the ideology when they are able to censor (or make people self censor) allegedly qualified scientists, doctors from producing factually accurate research.

Just another example of how #nodebate works in the face of flat earthism. The claim that men magically transform into real women can only be substantiated if it gets no scrutiny whatsoever and the importance of accurate medical research for mere women is now of no importance.

Zanda
It just makes the research nonsense. 5% is a small amount but might tip a particular result into being statistically significant. Presumably they have looked at the data again with or without the 5% to see if it made any difference to the results

If they've done the analysis, they don't report it in the paper. That part I quoted is the only reference to the trans participants in the whole paper.

If they had reported that analysis, or even mentioned it as a possible limitation in the study, I would have no issue. But to just gloss over this as if it doesn't matter is nonsense.

In the reply rejecting the letter they said that it was "unlikely" to affect the results. Which is as good as saying that they don't know.

Yes ‘unlikely’ suggests they haven’t asked to look at data without the males in it. It’s already biased as only those that expressed an interest are used. I wouldn’t have been able to use it for my MSc - though it would have made a good example for criticism of research limitations.

Reading in more detail ...
We recruited 109 (31%) of the 355 women in these prisons. The sample was demographically representative of the approximately 400 individuals in women's prisons in Scotland.

So presumably we can assume that 5% of the female prison population of Scotland (approx 20 out of 400) are trans women?

Given that male transitioners make up only 1% of society at most, I’d say it should raise all kinds of eyebrows that they make up 5% of this group of “women”. That in itself is an indicator that they are not representative of the group they’re being shoved into.

Sorry that the Lancet is another medical resource that has perhaps been taken over and is unable to be impartial on this topic. Until impartiality is achieved, these groups will continue to shill indirectly for transactivism. Which is particularly depressing as they will be widely assumed to be impartial sources.

Prion
Given that male transitioners make up only 1% of society at most, I’d say it should raise all kinds of eyebrows that they make up 5% of this group of “women”. That in itself is an indicator that they are not representative of the group they’re being shoved into.

Quite.

Honestly, I cannot get over how upset about this I am. That a piece of research about extremely vulnerable women included 5 trans women and the researchers didn't even think it was worthy of comment? It's basically propaganda at that point.

If a scientific journal has left science behind they should be honest about that. If I has a subscription I would be asking for my money back. What other studies are also nonesense?

whilst less than 1% of the UK population identify as trans, they make up 5% of a population of female prisoners with a conviction for a violent offence

OP, I share your rage. This is gaslighting, anti-scientific bullshit.

@InvisibleDragon

Reading in more detail ... We recruited 109 (31%) of the 355 women in these prisons. The sample was demographically representative of the approximately 400 individuals in women's prisons in Scotland.

So presumably we can assume that 5% of the female prison population of Scotland (approx 20 out of 400) are trans women?

Depends, doesn't it? If the transwomen have a GRC, they are just counted as 'women' by the DoJ, going by the Judicial Review.

Unethical and worrying. It is a cult and gaslighting. Amazing how previously unarguable ethical and moral imperatives just get thrown out the window. We shouldn't expect editorial boards of scientific journals to behave like this. I don't know how they sleep at night.

Prisons really need to keep an accurate record of the sex of prisoners they are looking after. The practice of males with a GRC instantly being recorded as female is dangerous as they are not risk assessed in the same way as their male contemporaries. This is such a gaping whole in risk assessment and is putting female prisoners in huge danger.

Hmm, my original statement was not quite correct:
"they make up 5% of a population of female prisoners with a conviction for a violent offence" should really be "they make up 5% of a sample of female prisoners"

ArabellaScott
If the transwomen have a GRC, they are just counted as 'women' by the DoJ, going by the Judicial Review.

They are counted as women by the DoJ, but they may have been asked as part of the study if they identity as trans.

If the head injury study is around other things in the area then it's of huge importance related to vagina owners, DV, what that means in court etc etc. It's really really important.

By including males they make a mockery of the whole point of the research.

That's totally appalling.

They are counted as women by the DoJ, but they may have been asked as part of the study if they identity as trans.

Does this mean that male prisoners counted as women by the DoJ who do not identify as trans could be included in in the remainder 95%?

Please can everyone sign this petition in the petitions and activism section.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/petitions_noticeboard/4299869-Please-sign-this-petition-to-have-crimes-by-men-recorded-as-mens-crimes