Is there any proof/statistics that back up the claim that trans people are the most marginalised and abused communities?

[Keke94LND]

Kier Starmer said that trans people are the most marginalised and abused communities, are there any reports or stats that back this claim up? Not that it is a competition for who is the most oppressed in society but In my opinion, I think there would be a strong argument for women being the most oppressed and abused group in history if you think historically and globally, women have been mistreated since the dawn of time right up until modern day in every country on earth, then ofcourse ethnic minorities are very marginalised in many countries to this day, as are disabled.. I just haven't been able to find anything that supports the claim that trans people are the most marginalised and abused? Is this actually true?

@Waitwhat23

Was it this year or last year that Jess Phillips and Karen Ingala Smith were criticised for not naming the transwomen killed over the previous year during the reading of the names recorded by the Counting Dead Women Project in Parliament? When it was pointed out by Karen and Jess that the reason for this was because no transwomen had in fact been killed over that year (or indeed for several years previous to this), they were told that that 'wasn't the point' and still faced accusations of transphobia.

All this while women are being killed at a rate of 2 or 3 a week.

There was also an event for Counting Dead Women and a local (to that area) branch of Womens Aid refused to take part and pulled their float because it wasn't inclusive of the murdered trans women. I can't remember the area.

Missed the word zero there, it wasn't inclusive of the zero murdered transwomen.

While failing to find the thread (I remember) about the women's organisation being shunned for failing to identify zero murders of transwomen - who recalls this classic?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3867798-Police-officer-posts-that-1-in-12-transwomen-get-murdered

Chester Women's Aid. Despite there being no names of transwomen killed that year to be read out at the Pride event, they stated - 'We have decided not to participate, as there will not be a specific declaration when reading out the list of women killed by men’s violence that we recognise and include transwomen in our protest.'

They also declare Karen Ingala Smith as transphobic for not including transwomen in her project. It's worth bearing in mind that the Government does not appear to collect the names of women killed by men in the UK and this is why the list compiled by Karen is used. There doesn't seem to be any attempt by other women's groups (who insist that this data collection be 'inclusive') to compile their own list. They just want to compel Karen to do so.

When I looked at the “transpeople are at the highest risk of suicide” stats it appears those extremely high figures were obtained by stonewall sending a questionaire out to their trans members and asking them if they’d ever felt suicidal.

I can’t find any evidence that trans people actually do end their lives at a rate above the general population.

It seems to me that if enough people say they are something, at risk if suicide or murder, they are believed without any statistical evidence.

We seem to be ditching evidence based practices for belief systems.

@Nomoreusernames1244

When I looked at the “transpeople are at the highest risk of suicide” stats it appears those extremely high figures were obtained by stonewall sending a questionaire out to their trans members and asking them if they’d ever felt suicidal.

I can’t find any evidence that trans people actually do end their lives at a rate above the general population.

It seems to me that if enough people say they are something, at risk if suicide or murder, they are believed without any statistical evidence.

We seem to be ditching evidence based practices for belief systems.

I looked at the suicide stats previously for the NHS Scotland scheme: there's a mistake in the pledge pack (at best).

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4269384-NHS-badges?msgid=108183848

It was based on a sample size of 27 respondees who actually were trans, but has since been misrepresented by Mermaids as 2000 trans people, because there were 2000 surveys sent out, (just over 1000 responded, but only 27 trans). No one followed up to ask the 13 who answered yes to suicidal thoughts other key questions which would put them into greater risk groups, like
Are they gay?
Do they have Autism?
Life trauma/ past abuse?
Which stage of transition were they? (There is data to show that puberty blockers increase negative and suicidal thoughts and there is a Swedish study which suggests that post transition people are 19x more likely to have thoughts of suicide)
It was left to the layperson to assume that it was just as a result of 'being trans' or having affirmation denied. PACE who carried out the survey said that's a risk when non scientific people with their own agenda present data.
Lobby groups ran a marathon with these numbers and I think they are at the front of everyone's minds when they think trans, they think fragile. Of course ITV's Butterflies helped a lot with that too.

Suicide statistics are very complex. Any statistical data about people who trans must be separated by sex and age if it is to lead to any positive changes.

For example, worldwide, the second largest cause of death for females aged between 15 and 19 is self-harm.

*people who are trans and experiencing suicidal ideation

@Nomoreusernames1244

When I looked at the “transpeople are at the highest risk of suicide” stats it appears those extremely high figures were obtained by stonewall sending a questionaire out to their trans members and asking them if they’d ever felt suicidal.

I can’t find any evidence that trans people actually do end their lives at a rate above the general population.

It seems to me that if enough people say they are something, at risk if suicide or murder, they are believed without any statistical evidence.

We seem to be ditching evidence based practices for belief systems.

A similar issue for the claim that trans people are twice as likely to experience domestic violence (less frequently cited, but often pops up in discussions about trans women's access to refuges and related services). It comes from a Stonewall publication which compares ONS data for the general working age population (weighted to be representative, using one definition of DA) with an unweighted Internet survey about LGBT experiences of DA (used a wider definition, pitched as a survey about LGBT DA ie v likely to skew responses towards those who had experience). The authors of the latter explained in their paper that whilst the findings about the nature of DA in these communities are valid and insightful, they shouldn't be extrapolated as if they show the prevalence of DA - but that's exactly what Stonewall have done to compare with the ONS figures and call it "twice as likely".

It seems to me that if enough people say they are something, at risk if suicide or murder, they are believed without any statistical evidence.

And in this case, as the OP notes, this stuff has become part of the belief system. So of course someone claiming to be trans is likely going to claim to feel suicidal. To not do so would be letting the side down, and not being properly part of the group.

And in a survey, where it's not really about them as an individual, of course they'd want to get the numbers up. What incentive would they have to tell the truth? High "suffering" numbers help the cause.

Not sure how much that would have been an issue whenever some of the commonly used/misused stats were done, but I'm sure it would have been a factor, particularly if recruited from online-type spaces, and it will be even more of a factor now.

This is just one of many trans "tropes" like having period symptoms, being unable to open pickle jars, having some intersex characteristics. People aren't prone to making just one persistent counter-factual claim - stopping at sex.

Actual real evidence does exist for some things, and I've never seen a real data source indicate anything terribly out-of-line. Murder rate is normal or low, suicide rate is normal (adjusted for other mental health issues - co-morbidities are notable). GIDS gave numbers and said they had very, very few instances; children in particular almost never commit suicide, even if trans-identifying. Oh, and evidence for transition improving mental health is very poor - this has been confirmed by recent court cases.

Crime commiting rate is somewhat higher - particularly sexual offenses - but that's likely confounded by post-crime transing in prison to claim privileges. Nevertheless, transvestism has long been known to be relatively common among sex offenders, and so the cross-dressing sex offender cohort is now under the trans umbrella, boosting that stat.

Any statistical data about people who trans must be separated by sex and age if it is to lead to any positive changes.

Absolutely. Lots of these figures vary massively between males and females, so it's vitally important to not just mix them.

In particular age cohorts the "trans" survey may have a particularly skewed sex balance, and that would immediately generate a non-typical population number in itself.

Part of the “most marginalised” trope is the lack of access to trans health care.

Given that trans health care is essentially turning healthy people into life long patients, complaining that most HCPs aren’t comfortable with hormone manipulation is a bit of a stretch. And for those who have surgery, care of those post-op bodies will be fairly niche. A gynaecologist won’t be much use for a transwoman’s pseudo vagina made of colon and completely different bacterial make up and medical issues.

I think that when people insist that trans-identified people are 'marginalised and vulnerable', they don't mean WRT to violence and poverty. They mean that they are psychologically vulnerable, not physically vulnerable. This is why people accede to the TRA language demands, and especially consider it very rude to point out a trans person's actual sex. Surely, only an arsehole would deliberately use words that can trigger suicidal thoughts in a mentally fragile person?

And this is a big part of why trans demands are trumping women's rights at (almost) every turn, and why it is a losing strategy for feminists to try to counter that by pointing out how vulnerable/victimised women are. People will ALWAYS consider trans to be the more vulnerable group, despite the fact that rates of violence against them are very low, and they have a powerful and influential lobbying infrastructure, because deep down many people think that trans = mental illness.

A suicide threat is an emergency situation that requires immediate and unconditional care of the suicidal person. But for it to provoke an emergency response, people must believe the person is genuinely suicidal, which is why women wouldn't get very far if we tried to use it as a political strategy, as trans activists do. People simply don't see women, as a group, as mentally vulnerable, but they do genuinely believe trans people are, and so TRAs invoking the spectre of suicide if their demands aren't met is a very effective strategy for them.

bezoarcureforpoison.tumblr.com/post/627479289450971137/lets-end-cissexism-d/amp
On this Tumblr thread there is a list of 28 trans people killed in the US in 2020.
From news reports, four of those deaths look like hate crimes. Most have little detail or appear to be domestic violence related or drug related.
There were 21,570 murders in the US in 2020.

But the domestic violence deaths can't be dismissed like that, for women or trans people. It's relatively rare for men to die at the hands of their partners. I wonder what sexes and genders are involved in those deaths. This is one of the things that leads trans activists to point out that trans people are as vulnerable as women.

I didn't mean to sound like I was dismissing them. But most people understand hate crimes to be separate from domestic abuse. There obviously can be overlap, men who fetishise certain ethnicities and seek out women of a certain race or nationality can still be racists, but if they were abusive I'd count that as interpersonal violence rather than a racist hate crime.
I might be wrong obviously.

I find this idea to be very odd. Surely the most marginalised and abused communities are, by default, the communities who have no rights, no true freedom and who are, essentially, victims of forced labour.

When I think "marginalised and abused", I think about issues of modern slavery: sex trafficked women or Chinese cockle pickers, for example. These people are so marginalised, you don't even know they exist -- even when they are living on your street.

No. Not at all.

I find the top trumps “who’s the most marginalised/disadvantaged” puerile at best and frankly fairly hard to believe of this particular group. I think it’s possible that as group they have had the biggest change in privilege but a white male who displays stereotypical “female” characteristics is surely far more powerful than for example many disabled people in our society. They are unlikely to have had to fight for education, healthcare, or independence and I would imagine are far less vulnerable to assault.