1 in 585 trans women are currently incarcerated for sexual offences

[GCITC]

Thanks to the census data, we can now show that 1 in every 585 trans women and England and Wales are convicted sex offenders.

That compares to 1 in every 2500-3000 men and 1 in every 243000 women.

twitter.com/mar2vickers/status/1611484662093828127?t=qo7fa3NkWyf_Qe-hRb9sUw&s=19

twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1611682182405160961?t=Kv1nsuxwEr3WlpagKYi7jA&s=19

So which is it? Are trans women inherently more dangerous than men that don't identify as trans, or are men pretending to me trans in order to offend?

The answer doesn't actually matter. The same solution fixes both issues.

Pommie69 · Today 21:51
For sex segregated spaces we only need to show HIGHER sexual offending & violence than the
FEMALE population.
The actual calculation shows that it is about the SAME as MALE sexual offending, that is enough for sex segregation

I am sorry to ask, but please would you explain what this means?

How is make sexual offending and violence the same as female?

I am not challenging you, just confused.

I think they are saying that transwomen rates of offending are the same as men on their analysis.

Same as men more than men more than women less than women. I don't care I still don't want them in the female prison estate.

I look forward to hearing more. And also the sex and age disaggregated data coming out on 25th of january.

www.ons.gov.uk/releases/genderidentityageandsexenglandandwalescensus2021

@Helleofabore at least they were honest enough to tell us right off that it was 'an ignorant and misinformed post'. I find that refreshing.

I'm pretty sure Pommie meant trans rates are the same as male rates, and both are higher than female rates.

But I agree with Boiledbeetle that these numbers are only part of the reason that no men - regardless of identity - should be held in the female estate. Even if their conviction rate were identical to that of women, they still don't belong there.

I don’t believe the Pommie is saying that any male should be in women’s prisons or single sex spaces.

She is known to be actively keeping track on the statistics of these sex offenders.

I think she wants to clear up any erroneous stats. I look forward to seeing what she produces. But I am interested in seeing her workings.

How is 'bias' putting people in prison? How can it be down to 'bias' that men who claim they're women are more likely to be convicted sex offenders?

MAKE IT MAKE SENSE

Is it the fact that these people are trans which causes them to be predators, or the fact that they are predators in the first place?

Does thinking they're women cause men to be predators? I doubt it very much. Does being a predator make a man more likely to claim to be trans? I expect so. Is it possible that an AGP male also has fetishes and paraphilias that involve non-consensual sexual behaviours? Yes, I should think so.

Are predators a risk to women and children, regardless of their identity claims? Obviously. Should we drop safeguarding measures for people who claim to be trans? Obviously not.

Either Pauline thinks TW offend sexually at multiple times the rates of other males because us evvul terfs make them sad, which obviously forces them into committing rapes, sexual assaults & CSAs...

Or maybe that us eeevvuul terffsss have such power over the judiciary, juries, police officers, forensic teams etc etc that we’re able to cause totally innocent TW to be fitted up for crimes that either never happened at all or were all the fault of someone else - probably thatJKRowling.

I think.

Sounds plausible, doesn’t it?

Don't you know? Everything is women's fault, especially men's pervy behaviour.

pommie

Quick question, how many male non binary people are under the MOJ male trans figures?

Are they reporting all male trans people in their stats or just ‘transwomen’?

And when they place male trans people in female prisons, are there non binary males in that number?

Pauline are you on clue?

Pauline, hen, trans identifying men are men, a sub set of men, not women, never can be women. Is that clear enough for you ?

A while back, there was a thread about offending rates. Someone said, gay people offend at a rate higher than straight, did we think they should be kept out if female spaces too, or some such crap.
i did some digging, and in the US, incarceration rates for gay people are much higher than for straight people. Interestingly, there was no such difference in the U.K. It’s possible that some of this difference may be due not to greater rates of offending, but of prosecution.
Without more data, it’s impossible to tell if there is a similar effect going on with trans people, but I think it’s at least possible that some of the difference between offending rates between the different types of men is down to jury prejudice. I think perhaps it’s easier for a gender conforming male to get away with crime than one who is perceived to be different.
As usual, we’re scavenging got crumbs of data and can’t really tell for sure.

the160,000 sex non specified

You can indeed produce range of numbers by using different denominators, trying to interpret the Census.

You can plausibly get rates between two and five times men in general - it's not really possible to get down to equal to men in general. Wings of Scotland has already gone through this quite comprehensively:

wingsoverscotland.com/the-rorschach-test/

The highest possible denominator would be to assume half the 262,000 are male, and actually trans. In which case it's 92/131,000 = 1 in 1423, which is still significantly higher than other men (1 in 2,212).

The actual calculation shows that it is about the SAME as MALE sexual offending,

No way.

You can only get to equal if you assume every one of the 262,000 including the "trans men" are male trans women, which is implausible.

But as I've said elsewhere, I'm convinced at least 50% and maybe up to 90% of the "no specific gender given" set of 118,000 are anti-gender responses from people who don't identify as trans. That's the only way you could possibly get such a big bar, and there's nowhere else they could be.

We need this clarified, but that means I would personally use (trans women + half of non binary + half of other + one quarter of the none) as my conservative denominator for male trans.

So 92/(48,000 + 15,000 + 9,000 + 30,000) = 92/102,000 = 1 in 1109 = twice other men.

You can only get to equal if you assume every one of the 262,000 including the "trans men" are male trans women, which is implausible.

Sorry - didn't show working there, and that's off. We're aiming for 1 in 2,212, which needs a denominator of 92*2,212 = 203,500. We just can get that by leaving out the trans men but assuming ALL the other and non binary and none are real trans males. But that's still implausible.

Well its using stats gained from the census, so it's hardly misinformed.

The whole thing is unsurprising because MEN however they identify are the issue.

Mindsets don't cause incarceration/imprisonment, judges do, go cry to them.

What bias? We are talking about all the stats for tw, men and women. No bias there.

You admit some are offenders and yet you still want them imprisoned with women and somehow WE are in the wrong? Please do elaborate.

Again, we didnt make these stats up. Its census data.

We already know because studies have been done for absolutely years at this point about men and predatory behaviour. Twam so its obvious they would follow the same path. no matter what they identify as, they cannot ever change sex.

The only test transwomen have to demonstrate is the extremely LOW sexually offending of the female population...and it is far far higher. If you want to check any stats or any calculations, I am always happy to help you sort through the nonsense and the REAL facts.

Calculations using the ONS figure of 48,000 transwomen ARE WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

OVER-stating our case is HIGHLY damaging to the cause of keeping female sex segregated spaces, female sex segregated.

The ONS and MOJ definitions of transgender males "transwomen" are DIFFERENT.

IF you want to help this cause AVOID using stats you are NOT absolutely sure of.
the 38,000% circulating is a total NONSENSE.

IF you want to HELP contradict ANY outcome that puts transgender sexual offending HIGHER than male... it may be slightly elevated but that is neither strategic NOR is it using the right TEST!

The extremely LOW violent and sexual offending of... the FEMALE population.

I have MOJ spreados open in front of me.

Adult females do not commit sexual offences against each OTHER!

My graphics to gives you SOLID stats you CAN use from a one-time mathematical analyst for British Aerospace (you know maths to prevent aeroplanes falling out of the sky!

using absolutely the WRONG 48,000 figure for transwomen...the ONS & MOJ define transwomen DIFFERENTLY so this is a totally false comparison.

And of course transgender advocates feel like this is like Section28. What would I know I was a lesbian teacher at the height of Section 28.

1 in 585 is NONSENSE whoever did this calculation clearly didnt understand the ONS and MOJ definitions are DIFFERENT. What about all the non-binary males from 166,00 who the MOJ would include as "transgender males"

Sorry, Pommie, I'm a bit lost here. We're going by the numbers in the census. If they're wrong, then okay. But we surely need to go by the numbers we have?

I don't think it's overstating the case to use the official figures.

1 in 585 is NONSENSE whoever did this calculation clearly didnt understand the ONS and MOJ definitions are DIFFERENT.

What are you talking about re the ONS definition? It was self-ID on the census.

I don't know what your graph is supposed to prove, it needs considerably more context. It seems to be saying that 80% of the trans inmates are male (ie transwomen.) That's irrelevant to the points made in the OP.

Would you define what you mean by NB please? It's not a term recognised in law.

Or does it mean that 80% of the male transgender inmates self-defined as nonbinary and not as "women"?

That does seem like an important point, if the numerator includes male "women" and nonbinaries and the denominator only includes male 'women.' But it's really not clear what you are saying! Is that what you mean?