Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Belz...]

This is one of those statistics that often rings alarm bells for men...but most women say "Hmm, yeah, sounds about right".

Just because it sounds right to you doesn't mean most women would agree.

What types of sexual violence shouldn't be included in definitions of rape and sexual assault?

Regreting sex the following morning, for one.

 

[JihadJane]

Regreting sex the following morning, for one.

That's not sexual violence.

 

[Rolfe]

Let's also consider that many trans people regard misgendering as "literal violence" and how that might skew these statistics. Is being addressed as Sir rather than Ma'am worse than having a stranger put his hand under your skirt in a cinena and grope you? (Happened to me.)

 

[Emily's Cat]

Just because it sounds right to you doesn't mean most women would agree.

There was a lot more to my post than just that.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Might be worth asking the women here whether or not they've experienced an attempted or completed rape, sexual assault, or other sexual violence. And for the male posters, ask your female significant others or close friends. We can start a list...

Emily's Cat
Emily's Cat's Mom
Emily's Cat's Sister
Emily's Cat's Sister-in-Law
Emily's Cat's close friends (4 of 6)
Rolfe

 

[The Atheist]

Jeez, this thread will end up longer than the Trump thread - a couple of these are only from yesterday, 3 pages back.

Only a tiny fraction of people calling themselves transwomen go for "full surgical transition".

There is a rider to that - a hell of a lot of trans women who would like full GRS are unable to due to cost and/or waiting times.

The queue in NZ for M->F GRS is currently 40 years long. No kidding!

As a result of there being next to no chance of obtaining GAS (I see it's now called gender affirmation surgery) most of them wanting the surgery don't even try.

I know from many years of dealing with trans women that almost all of them would like to have surgery. It's a prime driver behind Trans in the sex industry - there's a long tradition of trans women in NZ to work as a hooker to get enough money to go to Thailand for surgery.

he numbers don't mean what you think they do.

Testosterone testing happens in some sports, but is hardly universal.

I'm pretty sure the Olympics are well organised on that regard, but the rules were mainly drafted to combat the Caster Semenyas rather than trans athletes.

I am still royally pissed off at cycling NZ for allowing a bloke in panties to compete against women.

Trans people face exceptionally high risk of pretty much all the worst things humanity has to offer.

And it's only been made an issue since a few people started giving a damn.

For most of my life they've been treated as mutations rather than people and if one was killed the fact was more likely to be scorn rather than empathy.

I just refuse to accept that ensuring their human rights should impinge on another group.

 

[Rolfe]

I specifically mentioned the "it's too expensive" cohort in my post. Although that doesn't take into account that many seem to prefer to spend the funds they have on breast augmentation, facial feminisation surgery and voice lessons than on castration and penectomy. Also that in Britain the surgery can be obtained free on the NHS. (Also, when checking statistics, check if "surgical transition" actually means castration and penectomy. Very often any surgery is counted as a surgical transition, so that a "shemale" like Blaire White with breasts and a feminised face but with intact male sexual organs is counted as surgically transitioned.)

However, if we're discussing gatekeeping male entry into female single-sex spaces, and proposing that only those lacking a penis and testicles should be granted entry, then the reason for this state of affairs isn't really an issue. You can hardly tell women that Betty cock-and-balls is OK to share a changing room with because he really wants the castration/penectomy but can't afford it.

I've seen it often on twitter. It's not fair to insist on surgery, many transwomen can't afford it. Or they're scared of it. Or they just don't want it, why should they be forced to submit to unwanted painful surgery before they're allowed to be their authentic selves... The camel's nose is followed by the entire camel within the space of 280 characters.

 

[Belz...]

That's not sexual violence.

That's exactly my point, but in some "studies" it was counted, amongst other things, and it of course inflated the numbers, which is where some claims of 1-in-3 came from.

 

[Belz...]

There was a lot more to my post than just that.

Yes there was. I chose to respond to this specifically because I saw it as the gist of the post. Do you have an actual response?

 

[Belz...]

Might be worth asking the women here whether or not they've experienced an attempted or completed rape, sexual assault, or other sexual violence. And for the male posters, ask your female significant others or close friends. We can start a list...

Emily's Cat
Emily's Cat's Mom
Emily's Cat's Sister
Emily's Cat's Sister-in-Law
Emily's Cat's close friends (4 of 6)
Rolfe

I don't think this is how statistics are done.

Remember the old "I don't know how Nixon was elected. No one I know voted for him!"?

For most of my life they've been treated as mutations rather than people and if one was killed the fact was more likely to be scorn rather than empathy.

Wow you must live in a real hellhole.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

There wasn't any actual data there.

If you say so.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It's a meta-analysis of studies estimating prevalence in general populations from sample data.

And right there in that sentence is one big clue that you can't simply present this data as if it were itself an estimate of the prevalence of transgender people amongst the population. From the abstract: "to compare findings across studies that used different methodologies, in different countries, and over different periods."

If the study that I cited is to be excluded from the discussion because it's from 9 years ago, then why would 27 studies from different countries, different time periods, and which use different methodologies, be more valid? Can you even say that a single one of these studies is more recent than 2011?

To look at the actual study, rather than just the abstract:

The reported prevalence estimates are greatly affected by differences in methodology, and by variable definitions of transgender.

So the methodologies are important, absent the various definitions.

The electronic search included all papers published from 1966 through January 2015.

So the papers examined can go back a lot further than 2011. Do you think, perhaps, the changing acceptance of transgender people in society between 1066 and 2015 might affect the availability of gender affirmation surgery and people's willingness to out themselves by undergoing it?

As it is, the data actually goes back to 1953. If 2011 is deemed to be too long ago to be worthy of consideration, then why would 1953 be better? One study covers a period from 1958 to 1968.

Similarly, even ignoring the temporal aspect, why would data from Singapore be directly comparable to data from Iran and Spain?

And not ignoring the temporal aspect or the differences in population, why would data about the general population from 1968 in Sweden be directly comparable to data about veterans from 2011 in the US?

So, lets get on to methodologies. Compare and contrast:

Conron et al. analyzed data collected between 2007 and 2009 from the Massachusetts Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Study (MA-BRFSS).44 The survey was administered to 28,662 adults ages 18 to 64 years. Each participant was asked: “Some people describe themselves as transgender when the experience a different gender identity from their sex at birth. For example, a person born into a male body, but who feels female or lives as a woman. Do you consider yourself to be transgender?” There were 131 participants who responded ‘yes’ to that question, corresponding to a prevalence of 500/100,000 persons. The authors acknowledge that their estimate may have been affected by misclassification bias due to the broad scope of the question. Another limitation of the data is a lack of information on natal sex and gender identity.

Gates combined reports from the 2003 California LGBT Tobacco Survey, and the 2009 California Health Interview survey in order to estimate the number transgender adults in the general populaiton.16, 44 The 2009 California Health Interview Survey reported that 3.2% of adult participants were LGBT. Based on the 2003 California LGBT Tobacco Survey, 2.4% of LGBT persons self-identify as transgender. Using these considerations Gates further estimated that the prevalence of transgender people among California adults is 0.1% or 100 per 100,000.

Do those two papers sound like their data can be compared directly to get a true figure for how many transgender people there are in the general population?

And here's the kicker:

[...]the current communication should not be viewed as an attempt to obtain an average measure of transgender prevalence.

The analysis is about showing how differences in data collection and analysis methodologies can lead to wildly different results and that in order to collect meaningful data "future research should employ established formal methods of prevalence calculations".

 

[zooterkin]

No, but the thing we were discussing was the E part of TERF, and I was mentioning that Rolfe's point is excluding males from female spaces, not specifically trans women. So to connect the two dots, males and females have different needs, requirements, wants, feels and capacities that affect how they interact. Specifically, the claim is that women in general do not want people with penises around them, regardless of how they identify, because of the physical harm that this may present. Regardless of whether you agree with that position, my point is that they are not trying to excluse trans women, but males.

The catch is that you are supposed to fully embrace the mantra, "Trans women are women". If you don't buy into it 100%, if you have a nuanced position that, for example, is happy to treat people as they want to be treated, but doesn't accept biological impossibilities, then you are accused of being a TERF, and any attempt to explain your position is dismissed.

 

[zooterkin]

...

So at the end of the day... one in three over their lifetime might be high... but I don't think it's high by very much. If you actually look at sexual assaults, not just attempted or completed rape, it's absurdly high.

Did you mean 'absurdly low'?

 

[zooterkin]

I don't think this is how statistics are done.

Remember the old "I don't know how Nixon was elected. No one I know voted for him!"?

Seems to me you're the one saying that you don't know anyone who has been sexually assaulted, whilst the women here are saying it's not unusual.

For most of my life they've been treated as mutations rather than people and if one was killed the fact was more likely to be scorn rather than empathy.

Wow you must live in a real hellhole.

Indeed. Maybe there are cultural differences, but my impression is that the UK is generally tolerant of trans people. I remember reading the account of Jan Morris's transition in the mid-70s in, I think, The Times, which was presented sympathetically.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Maybe there are cultural differences, but my impression is that the UK is generally tolerant of trans people.

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/system/files/lgbt_in_britain_-_trans_report_final.pdf

Two in five trans people (41 per cent) and three in ten non-binary people (31 per cent) have experienced a hate crime or incident because of their gender identity in the last 12 months.

[...]

One in eight trans employees (12 per cent) have been physically attacked by colleagues or customers in the last year.

More than a third of trans university students (36 per cent) in higher education have experienced negative comments or behaviour from staff in the last year.

[...]

Two in five trans people (41 per cent) said that healthcare staff lacked understanding of specific trans health needs when accessing general healthcare services in the last year.

[...]

Younger trans adults are at greatest risk: 53 per cent of trans people aged 18 to 24 have experienced a hate crime or incident based on their gender identity in the last 12 months.

Hate crime against trans people is significantly underreported; most trans people - four in five (79 per cent) - don’t report it to the police. Some trans people who report a hate crime don’t feel supported by the police or
experience even further discrimination.

[...]

One in four trans people (25 per cent) were discriminated against when looking for a house or flat to rent or buy in the last year.

[...]

Three in ten trans people (29 per cent) who accessed social services in the last year experienced discrimination.

[...]

Seven per cent of trans people said they have been refused care because they are LGBT, while trying to access healthcare services in the last year.

[...]

More than one in ten trans people (11 per cent) who are out to their family, aren’t supported by any of their family members. Only one in four trans people (26 per cent) say that all their family members who know that they are trans, are supportive.

I suppose it depends how you define "generally tolerant". I'm not sure I count 12% of a particular group being physically attacked at work within the space of a single year as indicative of general tolerance. Especially not if you also factor in the fact that 51% of trans people at work hide the fact that they are trans because they fear discrimination.

 

[Rolfe]

The thing about the sexual assault figures is that for years I would have said, if asked, that I had never been sexually assaulted. When I heard the term I was thinking about actual rape or something close to it. Something forced and traumatic.

It was only relatively recently that I thought, hang on a minute, I've been physically sexually assaulted at least twice, and that's not even counting the times when a male friend got a wee bit more familiar than I really wanted him to be. At the age of sixteen, while sitting the the Cosmo cinema in Glasgow in my school uniform, a man came and sat next to me and started working his hand under my skirt and stroking my thigh. I should have called the management but I was too embarrassed. I moved away and he didn't pursue me.

When I was 36 I was subjected to what I now know doctors call a "clinically unnecessary breast examination" while hospitalised for pneumonia. A junior doctor, without saying a word, opened my pyjama jacket and gave my breasts a very thorough palpation. I was disturbed and thought about complaining, but, get this, I didn't want to get him into trouble. I only found out later that this is quite a common occurrence and some doctors are notorious.

Both incidents were embarrassing and a bit disturbing, but no more than that. I wasn't hurt. I wasn't violated, or at least I didn't consider myself violated. File under "these things happen". But after realising that these were indeed sexual assaults and that an answer in the negative to the question "have you ever been sexually assaulted" would have been the wrong answer from me, I started asking friends about their own experiences.

I have yet to find a single woman who doesn't have an incident like that somewhere in her past. If these incidents are within the definition of "sexual assault" then I seriously question any statistics lower than the high 90s. But many women seem to be so inured to these less serious assaults as not actually being assaults at all that their first reaction to the question would be, no, not me.

Meanwhile we have the trans lobby insisting that misgendering is "literal violence". Maybe the nature of these reported "hate crimes" needs to be probed. If people can report as a hate crime a tweet that they read because someone else showed it to them, that wasn't even about or to them (and yes this happened), then maybe there's a bit more going on here than meets the eye.

 

[Belz...]

Seems to me you're the one saying that you don't know anyone who has been sexually assaulted, whilst the women here are saying it's not unusual.

I really wonder what gave you that impression, since I said nothing to that effect, and I actually DO know someone who was almost raped. I also know a young woman who was abused by her father.

My point is that personal experience makes for poor statistics, because you don't know how representative your inner circle is. I didn't think this would be controversial, but nothing on this forum should surprise me anymore.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Seems like they're not, though.

Which brings us back to one of the central questions being asked in this thread. If you've already answered it, my apologies:

Should biological males be admitted into domestic violence shelters for women, based purely on self-identification as women?

It's a yes or no question, but not a simple one. I fully expect a complex or nuanced answer. That's fine with me. What's not fine with me is deflections like asking how often it happens. It doesn't matter how often it happens. What I'm asking is, do *you* think it would be a good thing or a bad thing if it did happen?

I think trans people ought to be able to fairly easily change their gender designation on official ID without having to jump through extensive bureaucratic loops or prove a minimum amount of permanent surgical transition. I see no reason why it should be any harder than having your name changed. Unless there is compelling evidence this is being abused, I see no reason to install barricades to this process.

I would defer to people more knowledgeable, such as those running these shelters, as to whether it is even necessary to have such "official gender" IDs. This is a long thread, so perhaps I've missed it, but I haven't seen anything that would indicate that this is something shelters are asking for. I just see the collected panic-mongering anecdotes.

 

[Matthew Best]

If you say so.

I do.