Is this statement hateful?

[Snoozer11]

"Trans women commit violent and sexual crime at the same rate as men".

It needs some statistics and a source before it can be taken seriously.

Establishing whether it is a proven fact or not, will help decide whether it is hateful or not.

As stated it depends of the evidence is there

Depends if it's evidence based or not.

These kind of statements generally also need limitors - transwomen in the UK? transwomen above the age of 30? etc etc

You can reword it, there is no evidence that they do not ....

Then someone can try and find the evidence.

Not hateful, but could be better phrased. Maybe say potential or risk instead, it's more accurate to what you're trying to say.

I should think that the wider context of that statement might be relevant. I'd agree with PPs who indicate that much depends on the quality of the supporting evidence. (There are threads that discuss the various academic papers and other sources of data however I don't know if you're drawing attention to a recent review or report.)

It's not hateful though I would say "other males" rather than "men".

'Men who claim to be trans'? I've seen stats. that seem to suggest it's higher. These figures are almost certainly skewed because of woolly definitions, cherry picking and bad faith actors.

Even if it' weren't supported statistically, that would not necessarily make it "hateful". It would make it untrue.

As far as the person who said it, that individual might or might not say something in order to be hateful, even if the statement was entirely true.

Most of the time it's a useless description.

I was under the impression that the outcome of a study in which Kathleen Stock was involved supported there being no significant difference between the crimes rates of trans and non-trans people.

But happy to accept that I misunderstood.

Context to it is this was a tweet which has been removed as "hateful content". The sentence is the entire tweet.

If we are talking about sex offences in the UK and reference moj figures then it could be implied as hateful to the other men.

It is twitter, anything other than repetition of the articles of faith: TWAW, stunning and brave, marginalised etc is considered hateful.

Maybe OP it is because it was seen as a round about way to say that they are 'men'?

Because as blunt as that statement is, there is no evidence to contradict it. However, some people will view it is hate because it could be taken out of context to direct hate at trans people.

As I said to someone on a thread here yesterday, there has been ample time passing to have some data about this.... why isn't there and why hasn't there been any moves to collate the statistics?

There was no reply to my post, of course.

It isn’t transphobic if based on evidence but could be seen as offensive. The problem is anything offensive is labelled as transphobic.

I think the word ‘rate’ is very confusing and inaccurate when talking about these type of statistics.

Link to the study this tweet is presumably referring to

If it's a fact then it's not hateful, if it's fiction then it is. Here's some evidence.
fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-male-criminality-sex-offences/
committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

Previous link is to a pdf download from parliament.uk, for those that don't like clicking on random links - committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/

Judging by the numbers in prison, they’re actually more likely to commit such offences than other men. And Stonewall wants “acceptance without exception” for every one who claims to be trans, so that includes all of the men who claim to be trans in order to get transferred into a women’s prison.

It's not hateful. It says that claiming trans status doesn't make a man magically less likely to commit a crime. He remains just as likely to commit a crime as before he declared he was a woman. That's truthful. I remember the analysis, it was fair.

Of course some people think that pointing out a trans identified man is still a man is hateful, but that's illogical.

Or it could, in that case, be mistaken. NO?

I suggest using the language of the Equality Act:

Men with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment commit violent and sexual crime at the same rate as all other men.

This avoids the confusion and obfuscation of using the word "woman" when referring to males.

There is no evidence that identifying as trans changes the risk any member of the male sex class poses to members of the female sex class. There is evidence that they commit crimes at the same rate as all other men.

Which is one of the reasons why we object to giving access to female-only legal set asides on the basis of someone's personal preferences for the sex stereotypes and sex role stereotypes associated with the female sex.

The other reasons are that of course women and girls have a right to their own boundaries around their own body and being required to tolerate those boundaries being violated for the benefit of men with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is a wholly unjustified and unreasonable demand.

You would expect that the rates of sex related crimes would be higher for trans women really, not because trans women are more likely to offend, but because the trans umbrella is so wide that all sorts of perverts can shelter under it.