Aren't transpeople still a tiny minority?

[Waheymum]

Over about fifteen years, I've noticed growing awareness and concern about transpeople. This may be my age and simply a case of when people I knew started to transition.
What I'm wondering is whether there are statistics further to the last census on how many people are transitioning or have transitioned. This is because I'm pretty sure that men are still a bigger threat to women's safety than transgender (m-f) women are. I'm not saying that no transwoman poses a risk to women, I'm querying whether, statistically, I'm better off crossing the road to avoid a cisgender man or a transgender woman (if, hypothetically, one were on each side of the road).

If you would like to present alternative data sets that assure women that this group of male people for risk assessment, have a pattern of sexual offending equal to or lower than female people, please link it up.

You would also need to objectively define who is and isn't included in this group, which is a problem if nobody else is using that criteria.

Yes. This has long been considered as part of the issue. And it has been prevented from being collected too through the obfuscation of recording male crime as female crimes and not capturing gender identity status.

It creates a situation where we are left with prisoner records to review. Not ideal but they are usable to make significant points in relation to safeguarding female people.

It’s not about creating a ‘out’ group.

Ministry of Justice statistics show that trans-identifying men are more likely than other men to be in prison for sex offences. So that tiny minority is more dangerous than other men.

Read Helleofabore’s posts above for full and incontrovertible details.

Don’t be disingenuous. You know female language means language pertaining to or discription of females. Pronouns are clearly part of that language and the destruction of female language is violence towards women. By using female language for men you are destroying it; you are destroying the means by which women can describe ourselves as a distinct category, destroy the means by which we can record our oppression or campaign against it, you are destroying our healthcare, our spaces, our protections in law. You dehumanise females by turning us into body parts or functions.

Your use of ‘she’, ‘her ‘, and ‘daughter’ to describe your son is abuse towards all women.

The entire issue is about words. Material reality did not change.

Trans identified males told society that TWAW.

Society nodded along, being 'kind'.

And through our schools and institutions and media told children that this was fact. And children believed it.

If society had drawn the line in the same way that women draw the line on here, we would not be in this mess.

It is not a complex societal issue at all. It's words being redifined to tell lies and being presented as facts.

We need to go back to telling the truth, even if that's painful for some. Having a society willing to tell such fundamental lies to our children to placate a small minority is dangerous and harmful to everyone.

It's just not constructive. I am not asking you to respect someone's pronouns, but surely you can see an entire post that just says the word "he" in response to me explaining a viewpoint is just inflammatory and unnecessary?

In one of your posts you referred to your trans child as your daughter. I understand that it is now perfectly normal and natural to you to refer to your child as your daughter. I did have to read back through one of your posts to work out who you were referring to though. I don't flip son/daughter, man/trans woman, she/he around so easily and fluidly in my own mind.

Previous 2 comments were deleted…..the thought police are out in force, it is starting to get really rather silly MNHQ.

TWANW, note the Not.

This. Furthermore use whatever pronouns or descriptions you want but please extend the same to others, and on a public thread it is reasonable for posters to clarify that the correct term is he, the correct description is son. You're free to use whatever you want and if you want and are happy to abuse women's rights and keep pushing women's boundaries do so but you don't have the right to not be called out for it. Son he him.

I agree. I experience it as extremely cruel TO ME when people wrongly sex others. Not only because I have sex realist beliefs but because it's a mangling of normal, grammatical English which I find akin to a continuous stroop test, and it has safeguarding implications too when talking about those who may be looking after children (see girl guides controversy).

When people lie, it contributes to loss of trust in society too. If words no longer mean what they have meant for long periods of time, and people can unilaterally change the meaning, it's difficult to trust other people and institutions (hello NHS with your lack of truly single sex spaces or women's rights).

Regarding the prison statistics, if it was down to a small subset of men, and one or two sex offenders could disproportionately effect the percentages, we should see that reflected in other crimes, too. And sometimes the percentage of sex offenders would be very low.

So sometimes the proportion of sex offence is high, other times drug dealers, sometimes fraud. Sometimes, very few, if any sex, offenders.

But the percentage of sex offenders stays high on every report.

It could be than only the very dangerous trans identifying men get a prison sentence, and other criminals, who would be imprisoned if they didn't identify as trans, get a more lenient sentence? But that wouldn't be right, would it?

"You are using different statistics together to lead to a conclusion without understanding the contact of the data eg how it was collected, what possible flaws there could be, slightly different definitions, different dates or time frames etc etc"

actually, I am confused here.

I presented the data across two posts. What were the 'different statistics' that you think I was using? Do you mean that I used the 2019 % of female sex offenders in prison to extrapolate what should be the likely % of male people with transgender identities sex offences in prison if their offending rate was the same or lower than female people in the UK, and not a more current % ?

As I stated, that % of female sex offenders had been relatively stable over decades. Do you think that this will have dramatically changed?

Do you understand the point I was making? That we can extrapolate the % to come up with some kind of estimate (of course not exact) of what should be the numbers we are seeing in prison that are sex offenders. The numbers are not even close. I can come back tomorrow and do more splicing if you want.

But at this stage, I am not sure that you can come up with a convincing argument as to why the statistics presented should not be considered as showing that

This group of male people for risk assessment, do not show a pattern of sexual offending equal to or lower than female people in the UK.

Yes, there are limitations on those figures. But I cannot understand why they cannot be said to show what I have stated. Others may make other assumptions and use the data I have posted how they wish. It is always interesting to see what others do with it.

However, these are the points you mentioned:

We are comparing a group of 200 transwomen with a group of 10s of 1000s of men. If we get 50 more sex offenders in the trans group it will have a dramatic impact on the percentage of sex offenders in the trans group. If the same happens with the male group, it will scarcely change the percentage. For this reason, It is not viable to compare percentages with such widely differing bases.

I disagree to a point on this. We are looking at crime patterns and whether they hold stable to be assessed as this group having lower risk or the same risk as female people. The % of sex offenders in that group current are in no way even close to female people. Yes, if we get 50 more sex offenders in the group it will be a dramatic impact. But the pattern is consistent that this group are not being imprisoned with sex crimes to their names in anyway near the % of female people.

"Also we need to understand that the numbers relating to people in custody simply show us who is being caught and convicted. They don’t necessarily give us a true picture of who is more likely to commit a sexual offense."

Yes. Is there a reason that you think that this group of male people are being caught and convicted disproportionately more than female people are being caught and convicted? Do you think that this group of male people are being caught and convicted disproportionately more than other male people are being caught and convicted? Why? Where is your evidence that there is this disproportion?

"Another way to look a this would be be to calculate the proportion of transwoman sex offenders as a percentage of the overall transwoman population but I don’t think we have that figure."

I have already answered this.

"We need to remember that these figures don’t tell us anything about who offended but wasn’t caught or anyone who received non-custodial sentences."

I have also been though a number of convictions where the person has pleaded being vulnerable and received non-custodial sentences. When I did this, I noticed that the % was actually pretty high so if those male people with transgender identities were included, the number would be even more strongly supporting that :

This group of male people for risk assessment, do not show a pattern of sexual offending equal to or lower than female people in the UK.

I understand that you want to warn people of misusing statistics but I am not sure that you have understood the aim of me posting these statistics in the first place.

This is going to seem harsh @Diverze , but if my adult son identified as a 6 year old or as a rabbit, I would not be meeting him halfway in the deception, even if it did relieve some of his distress. I would not be saying, 'well he learnt it at school, nothing I can do about that now'. I would not be finding ways for him to live as a 6 year old or as a rabbit without talking facilities and rights away from other people. I would be re-mortgaging the house to buy him any professional help that I could possibly find.
What is it about this 'man identifies as woman' story that makes so many people, including parents and educators, so passive?

@Waheymum I'm querying whether, statistically, I'm better off crossing the road to avoid a cisgender man or a transgender woman

I would avoid the trans-identified male everytime because, as PP said, he is already demonstrating a disrespect for women's boundaries.

Thirded!! I am NOT a cis-gender woman. I am
just a woman. Being a woman is enough. Women do not need to be defined by comparison against what we are not. There are women, and then there are trans women (who are biological males).

He was 16 when he first experienced gender issues as 23 when he finally told us. Hth.

So? I don't see your point. Are you saying it is so entrenched now that there is nothing you can do? Are you saying that he is an adult now, so there is nothing you can do?
Would your attitude be the same if he was identifying as a 6 year old?

Ed Davey knows a woman can have a penis. So does Zack Polanksi.

More than that ‘cis-gendered’ in transideology mean women who identify with ‘woman-gender’, in other words a woman who identifies with the very source of our oppression. I reject the whole idea of ‘woman-gender’ as a regressive oppressive sexist construct that should be destroyed.

They both know that women do not, that is why they listen to men who identify as women and not to women.

I really appreciate you using accurate language. Genuinely. Thank you.

Correct use of language cannot be underestimated.
Take the use of language when referring to trans-identifying people. It has been shown that the general public may be confused about the terms used.
For instance, when reading the term
'Transgender woman'; you might think 'hmmm what is that woman identifying as?
Even by stating 'trans woman' it may be gathered that this is a woman.
But these terms are crucial to men wishing to be seen as women, to give the illusion that they are a simply 'women' as long as that vital word is there, that after all, is ours.
Trans identifying men is better but I do think that can confuse too.

Transpeople don't want 3rd spaces. Well actually, I'll change that. Trans-identifying men don't (generally) want them as they don't offer the same validation. You know, peeing with the other girls.

Additionally these unisex, mixed sex whatever spaces, are much less safe for women and girls. Probably messier and dirtier too.

Posters who come to start these threads, often with faux naivety, must think the women of FWR are daft! It has all been seen, said, read before; many times over.
There's an abundance of intelligent women on FWR who have read the evidence, pored over stats, marched the marches, attended meetings, signed the petitions etc
Heck, some on FWR are science based!!!!

All standing up for women and girls.
All the ploppers and runners won't change that

Diverze- I doubt if anyone hates your child, but language is important.
How can women and girls be protected if we are including men and boys in using female terms?

But there isn't a neutral "middle ground", not as long as you keep using female language for men.

Because any such "middle ground" that recognises these men as "women", "she", "can't be Harry so must be Helen" necessarily involves at least some degree of social acceptance that these men, these "trans women" actually are legitimately closer to women than other men because of their minds.

I get that you may not like to hear that is sexist, but it is. It is fundamentally sexist. So you are never going to find a fair place if you insist any way forward has to include validating it.

The real way forward is not to say "we'll ok, he's not really a woman but if it makes him happy, we'll sort of pretend he is" then try to square the impossible circle of doing that without taking space, resources or visibility from actual women and without accidentally endorsing social stereotypes that hurt and limit women.

The real way forward is to say, not just to your son but as a society to all trans people, "this thing you feel is real and valid, but it is not being the opposite sex and we can't keep calling it that. So let's go back, forget the labels for now and describe the actual feelings you are experiencing so we can create new languages and spaces for you."

Third spaces yes if the gap between "trans" people and others of their sex truly means a subdivision within sex, or across sex, is what is needed, but under new names not as a half way house for people who believe they occupy these fake places between men and women that do not in reality exist.

The other thing I would say, where I think young people are being failed (and their families) is that things like changed pronouns are coercive demands. It is not kind to tell young people that such a lopsided coercive and frankly abusive approach to relationships with others is healthy. Because it's not.

Why would you hang out with someone who has you walking on eggshells around language when there are many other people you could be friends with who don't do this, who don't make coercive demands?

For anyone with cognitive processing difficulties (including women with brain fog via menopause, like me) asking them to change the entire way they've used language their entire many decades of their lives is not a reasonable ask. I actually think asking me to do a cartwheel every time I saw someone would be equivalent - actually better, as I'd only have to (attempt to) do that once.

In English pronouns for people are sex-based and based on the observation or knowledge of the person speaking. Unlike names, they are not something you individually learn for each person you meet.

Asking people to change pronoun use is about as easy if I demanded everyone substitute the word 'dog' for 'the'. See how far you get before you make a mistake. And that's the exact point imo, no-one - even the most extreme TRAs - can do it right for long. And then they have to self-flagellate for wrongspeak like we're in some Orwellian dystopia. We've seen the hilarious spectacle of those who hounded women out of their jobs and livelihoods (or tried, thinking of Jo P who has a rather fitting name) unable to stick to preferred pronouns in court. Because it's hard to do, even if you want to. It's an unreasonable demand and it's coercive to then imply anyone who can't do it is a bigot.

It leads to very, very unhealthy relationships. With one side making unreasonable demands and the other (even if they want to follow the unreasonable demands) living in fear of getting it wrong.

Excellent post

In English pronouns for people are sex-based and based on the observation or knowledge of the person speaking. Unlike names, they are not something you individually learn for each person you meet.

This bit in particular strikes me. When did we come together as a society and decide to overrule all this? Because I must have missed that big debate.