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.

That’s different from the Public Order Act and therefore offences are not Public Order offences.

How convenient to accept shit data that is know to not record what you’d actually need to come to an evidence based conclusion.

Goodness, best mention to the Trans Day of Remembrance compilers that their data is "shit".

The evidence based conclusion is that there is no trans murder epidemic.

Distribution of offences flagged as hate crimes

51% 'public order'

You really don't allow facts to muddy your arguments, do you?

From the CPS

Electronic communications sent via social media may involve the commission of a range of offences, including: offences against the person, public justice, sexual or public order offences, and Harassment, Stalking, and Controlling & Coercive Behaviour.

This is borne out by both police data and data from friends and family members of murdered people.

Nope. Asians are 2x likely compared to white people to be victims of homicide.

When you start fabricating statistics to fit your narrative- is that being in good faith? Is that the type of evidence you are used to trotting out?

https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/ethnic-minorities-at-much-higher-risk-of-homicide-in-england-and-wales

Focus, Hen, focus! Stop swerving!

Speaking of muddying, it’s clear that only applies to
Intimidating a witness or juror, contrary to section 51 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994*

So, not ‘hurty tweets’ regarding gender ideology and also not a hate crime.

From gov.uk

The Asian ethnic group (2%) were significantly less likely than the White ethnic group (4%) to be victims of a personal crime

Nope. Asians are 2x likely compared to white people to be victims of homicide.

Homicide isn't the only "crime against the person" is it? As we see, given there is no trans murder epidemic according to any data we have, but you apparently have data that states (however reliably) that trans people are more at risk of violence?

That was to your ‘statistics’ page
https://kareningalasmith.com/2021/04/21/counting-dead-trans-people/

Homicide is the worst sort of violence. That is sufficient to be included in hate crime legislation as a vulnerable demographic.

I didn't post Karen Ingala Smith, mate. I merely asked why you had an issue with it. Women on FWR are different people, not one hive mind blob of "woman whose views you don't like".

Homicide is the worst sort of violence.

But the pattern can be different, as it is here with Asian crimes, as @MissLucyEyelesbarrow pointed out to you, and I pointed out to you regarding trans murders.

So Hen thinks women shouldn’t be covered by hate crime law, even though there is an epidemic of VAWG - let’s face it, if misogyny was a hate crime, the whole world would come to a stop cos there wouldn’t be time for anything else

As an aside, I think this is an awful definition.

Some years ago we had terrible neighbours - they rowed in the middle of the night, woke up all the other neighbours. People phoned the police, resulting in retaliation (shit on our doorstep etc.). One time when the police came round to talk to us, they pointed out that our awful neighbour was Asian, and said, "So that's a part of it, then?" WTF. So if this idiotic policeman, or our horrible neighbour, had wished to record this dispute as a hate crime on our part, they could have done so!

*Crimes against Asian people not "Asian crimes"

What? WTF has witness intimidation got to do with whether social media communications can constitute a hate crime.

Let's read on, in the CPS guidance about examples of criminal offences committed via social media, :

In R (on the application of Alison Chabloz) v Crown Prosecution Service [2020] 1 Cr. App. R. 17, the defendant (who had an internet blog) posted hyperlinks to YouTube where she had uploaded videos of herself singing grossly offensive anti-Semitic songs. Her convictions for offences under s.127(1)(a) and (1)(b) were upheld by the Court of Appeal, which noted - "The purpose of s.127(1) was to prohibit the use of a public electronic communications network to contravene basic standards of public decency. The offence did not depend on the message being received, but was complete when it was sent, DPP v Collins [2006] UKHL 40 followed. The potential recipients of a message posted on the internet were members of the public. It was immaterial that an accused might have intended only that a message should be read by a limited class of people."

And
(f) Persistently using a public communications network for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another (s.127(2)(c) CA 2003)Under s.127(2)(c) CA 2003, a person may be guilty of an offence by persistently making use of a public communications network for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another person.
In the case of Scottow v CPS [2020] EWHC 3421 (Admin), the Divisional Court considered the scope of the offence under s.127(2(c) CA 2003. In Scottow, the defendant posted a total of 16 messages on Twitter and Mumsnet during 2018-2019 about the complainant, a transgender woman who had a public profile as an activist and advocate on transgender rights. The issue was whether the defendant had 'persistently' sent messages with the required purpose.
Oh look - it's about hurty tweets.

Oh look - it's about hurty tweets.

My astonished face is unchanged from earlier.

Personal crime covers all crime against an individual, violent or nonviolent. Why would you even use this in a discussion about violence?

You are making up a definition of hate crime that has no basis in fact and cherry-picking stats to justify it.

But, as your definition is not correct, you can quote as many figures as you want, but it still won't make it true.

I didn’t say it wasn’t a crime, just that it’s not a public order offence or a hate crime. Hate crimes are not all crimes against a set demographic, it is only five specific types of crimes.

Because hate crime include non-violent crime.

You really are playing pigeon chess now.

I did no such thing. Look in the mirror.

Obviously, I was pointing to the hate crime reports which includes violent crime to establish that transgender people are at higher risk of violent crime than the average person.

You seem to lack focus on the actual thread topic. Just because the hate crime report covers violent AND nonviolent crimes, doesn’t mean you can ignore that it collects data and evidence on violence against transpeople.

You going off on a tangent about non violent and non hate crimes is pointless.