Data on violence against trans people & women

[TangoTarantella]

This morning my DP (male) said that trans people were at greater risk of male violence than women. I pointed out that around 2 women a week are murdered by men in the UK (is that just by current or former partners?) and the figure for trans people was around 0. He said that if around 1% of the population are trans then at the same rate of murder of women you’d expect 0 to 1 trans murder per year so therefore in line. Kind of disproving his own point but I’d like some solid data to end this debate with him.

I haven’t been able to find any data on murder rates in trans people or the overall % of trans people in the population. Can anyone point me to any? It has really upset me that he came out with this statement so confidently and I would like to show him that he’s wrong.

Obviously there is more to violence than murder and I imagine women are at far great risk of rape/sexual assault from men than transwomen are. But are there any data on that?

Please help me to educate him otherwise he may be heading for the bin.

This is like arguing with an actual chicken on meth. Can't believe I'm wasting my beautiful Sunday morning doing this!

"Hate crime is defined as ‘any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic.’ "

There's the EW definition of hate crime. It's fairly broad, no? Thanks to the people who posted the link.

You’re clearly not capable of looking up the legal definition of a hate crime.
Why should I spell out the definition of a hate crime when you can simply look up anything you do not understand?

Yes your trans statistic webpage that records trans homicide victims on the basis of what what person happens to remember when they wrote it is absolute bollocks. Don’t tar all statistics sources with the same brush as what your paltry can’t even find a definition research skills have turned up.

Criminal offences can be:

Malicious communication (eg social media, emails)
Harassment (misgendering etc)
Public order act (saying something offensive)
Criminal damage (putting up stickers, graffiti)

Until you look at the actual criminal offences.
Assault with injury
Assault without Injury
Harassment
Public fear, alarm or distress
Criminal damage to a dwelling
Criminal damage to a building other than a dwelling
Criminal damage to a vehicle

note the absence of “hurty tweets”

Hurty tweets are public order offences.

Malicious Comms. Banners and posters can be public order offences I think.

Harassment
Public fear, alarm or distress

Both could potentially include social media.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2021-to-2022/hate-crime-england-and-wales-2021-to-2022

happy Sunday

Yep.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/public-order-offences-incorporating-charging-standard

Not sure what point he's making, but this is just a rehash of the old men's rights refrain that men are at greater risk of (male) violence than women.

The hate crime statistics are evidence that transpeople suffer more violence than the average person

They show nothing of the kind.

1. Hate crimes are predominantly not violence against the person.

2. Hate crimes are not comparing crime rates with violence suffered by the average person. At best, you can compare rates of hate crimes against the different categories recognised - race, disability etc - but, as all groups rely on self-identification, this is hard to do reliably.

3. Hate crimes effectively exclude most of the population. In theory, you might be a victim of a hate crime for being white or heterosexual, but clearly this is going to be a tiny percentage of actual hate crime, if any. So it is impossible for hate crime data to tell you anything about violence against hate crime categories, compared to the average person.

Criminal damage: graffiti, stickering.

The report mentions "anti Muslim graffiti" specifically.

Do you think we came down in the last shower, Crackhen? It's a new twist on pigeon chess, anyway.

happy Sunday

Catch up, @PonyPatter44 has already done that.

Distribution of offences flagged as hate crimes

51% 'public order'

“Hate crimes are predominantly not violence against the person.”
41% isn’t a small number, it’s second largest type of hate crime

“Hate crimes are not comparing crime rates with violence suffered by the average person”
Hate crimes exist because those demographics have been shown to have a higher rate of being victims of violent crime than the average person. A demographic is not eligible to be covered under hate crime legislation unless this is the case.

Distribution of offences flagged as hate crimes

51% 'public order'

How astonishing. This is my surprised face.

At least this pigeon knows how to look up the definition of a hate crime and knows the meaning of one. If I’m a pigeon playing chess, then you must be a potted plant.

Most 'violence against the person' is 'violence against the person without injury', thankfully.

This bar chart shows the proportion of different offences quite clearly.

You do know that SM isn’t “in public” and public order offences do not apply to SM (tweets)?

Mate, don't be so daft. Read the link I posted.

You might "know how to look it up", but you didn't, did you? Which makes me wonder if you've ever actually seen these figures in the raw before.

Here.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/section/1

and

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/social-media-and-other-electronic-communications

You do know that SM isn’t “in public” and public order offences do not apply to SM (tweets)?

If you bothered to read my posts you would see that I know what a public order offence is. SM can be covered by harassment and "causing public fear, alarm or distress".

Apparently you didn’t read it. The only reference to SM is to tell prosecutors to look at Communications Offences- which are different acts from the Public Order Act.

41% isn’t a small number, it’s second largest type of hate crime
Do you not know the meaning of 'predominantly'?

Hate crimes exist because those demographics have been shown to have a higher rate of being victims of violent crime than the average person. A demographic is not eligible to be covered under hate crime legislation unless this is the case.

Nope. Hate crimes are those considered to be particularly socially divisive.

Asian people are half as likely to be the victims of a crime against the person against white people, but much more likely to have the crime logged as a hate crime, as clearly it is much more likely to be racially motivated.