Split Thread violence and harassment by and to different gender identities

[FatherLukeduke]

Your link is a different story using the same source as one of mine.

The 'five times' reference was to a Norwegian study looking at five decades of data on trans gender people.

The link is to a Dutch study, not Norwegian. It doesn't mention murder at all (so I presume it wasn't a big factor), but does highlight (if to be taken at face value) absolutely terrible health outcomes for transgender people, especially transgender women:

An analysis of the subgroups show transgender women were 2.6 times as likely to die of cardiovascular disease, 3.1 times as likely to die from lung cancer, 8.7 times as likely to die from infection, and 6.1 times as likely to die from non-natural causes as cis women.

The greatest risk for those suffering from cardiovascular disease was heart attacks, which were 3 times higher in transgender women than cis women.

Most likely the starkest difference was the mortality risk from HIV, which was 47.6 times higher for transgender women in comparison to cis women.

Finally, the suicide rate was 6.8 times higher for transgender women.

There is no link to the actual paper, so it's hard to judge how valid the statistics are. The study is just looking at people receiving "gender-affirming hormone therapy" - it would be interesting to see how this compares to transgender people who do not get hormone therapy.

split from [Split Thread] Drag, gender identity and campaign groups

Posted By: jimbob

 

[tyr_13]

The link is to a Dutch study, not Norwegian. It doesn't mention murder at all (so I presume it wasn't a big factor), but does highlight (if to be taken at face value) absolutely terrible health outcomes for transgender people, especially transgender women:



There is no link to the actual paper, so it's hard to judge how valid the statistics are. The study is just looking at people receiving "gender-affirming hormone therapy" - it would be interesting to see how this compares to transgender people who do not get hormone therapy.

Yup, that was a double brain fart moment for me. Where I had originally seen the study the same mistake was made. This made me try to remember to not flip them. But because my brain remember both the actual location and to flip them, it flipped it back to the wrong location.

I never did save the .pdf, but it doesn't seem like going to the work of finding it again or the original discussion would be worth it because the details it would add are not valuable to the people objecting. If the murder rate is four times rather than five times, it wouldn't change their position.

 

[FatherLukeduke]

If the murder rate is four times rather than five times

I don't really understand where you are getting this murder rate from? Can you cite a source?

 

[tyr_13]

I don't really understand where you are getting this murder rate from? Can you cite a source?

On my phone and in a hurry, but it's been cited twice already by myself and another poster. Last page I think.

 

[Ziggurat]

On my phone and in a hurry, but it's been cited twice already by myself and another poster. Last page I think.

No. You provided citations for general higher crime rates, and a study about elevated mortality rates. Nobody provided any link showing a 5x higher murder rate.

One of the links provided by Upchurch shows an approximately 3x higher violent crime victimization rate, but that's not specific to murder. But even if we could extrapolate that 3x rate to murders (we can let the difference between 3x and 5x slide), I don't think it really demonstrates what you're claiming. Here's a few interesting bits:

The study also found that sexual and gender minorities are burglarized at twice the rate of other households​

Burglary is a pretty impersonal crime. It's largely determined by where you live. This is a VERY strong indicator that there are other correlated factors, not transphobia per se, thatplay a significant role in victimization rates.

OK, but what about the actual violent crimes, which often are of a personal nature? Well...

Cooper said transgender people are particularly vulnerable, especially by partners or people close to them. The HRC has documented the killings of at least 30 transgender or non-gender conforming people in 2020 alone. The majority were Black and Latina transgender women.

“There’s an incalculable amount of transphobia … that plays into these relationships,” Cooper said.​

Sorry, I call bull ****. If transphobia is a significant motivator, you aren't going to be partners with a trans person to begin with.

Again, transgender people are disproportionately sexual abuse survivors. Sexual abuse survivors often end up in abusive relationships. There's an extremely strong correlation there, and it applies to gender conforming people too. It's a god damn tragedy, it's a social pathology we need to do better at addressing across society, but it's not unique to trans people.

 

[tyr_13]

I don't really understand where you are getting this murder rate from? Can you cite a source?

On my phone and in a hurry, but it's been cited twice already by myself and another poster. Last page I think.

I hope the above post helped illustrate my point; the exact or even rough data doesn't matter to the objections. We could, if we wanted to go off-topic for this thread, go into how there is no reason to suspect the murder rate is less than any of the other violent crime rates, how the data has confounding factors but most point to drastic under counts in violent crime, how the limited known murders of trans gender people specifically has almost doubled in the four years after the federal government stopped separating out the data the cited paper used for 2017, or any of the other details.

But none of that actually matters. To the point of the thread, it's the same, the exact same, attacks and rationalizations used against the entire LGBTQ community, especially gay men. It's dismissed, diminished, or cast as dangerous. As social contagion. As dangers to children. As a mental illness. As inherently sexually explicit to exist. As sex workers. Even holding childhood sexual abuse against them (as they cry their attacks on the rights and liberties of the community aren't based on that, no no!). It's the same arguments devoid of rigor or support all over again.

There is little point in arguing with the people pushing these same failed arguments yet again on grounds of the facts because the facts just don't matter to them and really never did. That's why so much of the board just ignores the other thread. But the community is wise to not ignore that it's the same failed arguments to the same ends that target all of them. That's why they campaign together, and even throw in with seemingly unrelated things like attacks on drag. The LGBTQ community just isn't fooled by these implausible denials.

 

[Ziggurat]

I hope the above post helped illustrate my point; the exact or even rough data doesn't matter to the objections.

That's rich, given that the exact or rough data doesn't seem to matter for your claim. Seriously, you made a factual claim you couldn't back up and never retracted, but somehow I'm in the wrong for having called you out for your failure? No. You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. And you have not met it.

 

[tyr_13]

That's rich, given that the exact or rough data doesn't seem to matter for your claim. Seriously, you made a factual claim you couldn't back up and never retracted, but somehow I'm in the wrong for having called you out for your failure? No. You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. And you have not met it.

You're wrong for a whole host of reasons.

As your other post shows, you don't care if the rate is 3, 4, 5, times because you already have the same rationalizations used against gay men and the rest of the LGBTQ community. No matter the elevation of the murder rate, it doesn't matter because the community is also more likely to be abused as children. You'll never really understand how utterly ****** that reasoning is. The handwaves are all likewise feeble, so you try to focus on not making those arguments more and pretend it's all 'honest concern for burden of proof'. You can't pretend that you both care deeply about the specific rate and that the specific rate wouldn't matter anyway with any intellectual integrity.

Like I said, the LGBTQ community isn't easily fooled by such masks. The hate crime rates prove they are targeted for who they are and the elevated violent crime rates are not plausibly divorced from that. You're pretending that if the hate crime charges don't constitute the majority of literal homicides, then it 'doesn't count'. Abused as a kid? Your murder doesn't count towards LGBTQ hate. Your goalpost is selective nonsense and you know it. So does the community.

Again, have fun excusing DeSantis and Tennessee and all the rest of the attacks on the LGBTQ community that are increasing. You'll never meaningfully oppose any of it. After all, maybe they're just autistic.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're wrong for a whole host of reasons.

As your other post shows, you don't care if the rate is 3, 4, 5, times

A 3x rate is well above normal, which is concerning. So I don’t care about 3x vs 5x in the sense that it’s not like I need it to be 5x before that elevated rate matters. Go ahead and try to spin that as being anti-trans if you can.

But it does make a difference to whether or not you supported your claim, which was specifically 5x. And you never did support that claim, nor did you retract or even modify it.

because you already have the same rationalizations used against gay men and the rest of the LGBTQ community.

I’m not using rationalizations against anybody. You fundamentally misunderstand everything about this conversation because you can’t see it through anything but a partisan lens. I don’t want trans people to be murdered. But blaming your political opponents doesn’t actually solve problems. You aren’t interested in solving problems, only in blaming people.

No matter the elevation of the murder rate, it doesn't matter because the community is also more likely to be abused as children.

Can you ever not straw man? No, apparently not.

Factors such as abuse history and risky behavior don’t mean that elevated murder rates don’t matter. Of course they do, I never suggested otherwise. And it’s pathetic that you feel the need to portray me as a monster rather than address my actual arguments. Risk factors matter because if you want to do something about that murder rate, then you have to actually understand what causes it. But you only care about causes you can blame your political opponents for. If a cause can’t be blames on your opponents, it’s not worth considering for you. But that approach means nothing will be done about such factors. In contrast, I would like to see much better support provided to sexual abuse survivors, to help keep them from being re-victimized.

You'll never really understand how utterly ****** that reasoning is.

Except that was never my reasoning in the first place.

You're pretending that if the hate crime charges don't constitute the majority of literal homicides, then it 'doesn't count'.

It doesn’t count towards supporting your claim, but that’s your fault, not mine, because that’s how you structured your claim. It still matters, but mattering and being what you claimed aren’t synonymous.

 

[Darat]

That's rich, given that the exact or rough data doesn't seem to matter for your claim. Seriously, you made a factual claim you couldn't back up and never retracted, but somehow I'm in the wrong for having called you out for your failure? No. You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. And you have not met it.

So let's all agree to drop the claim about murder rates. Now what about the increase of crimes against LGBT folk over the last 5 years or so?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Again, why does that argument only get applied by you to the T and not the rest where it is just as true? Why do you advocate for, or desperately try to distract from, the policies that would prevent these same people from getting support for their sexual abuse? You're one who don't want them using the resources allocated based on their status as trans.

It gets applied to transwomen, because transwomen are male.

I'm all for transwomen getting support for sexual abuse, rape, and domestic violence. I'm also all for males in general getting support for sexual abuse, rape, and domestic violence. Nobody - I repeat NOBODY - wants them to be denied help.

But it still remains true that females are victimized at massively higher rates than males, or even transwomen. Females are the victims of sexual abuse and rape at rates well above either of those categories, and quite frankly there are many more of us. For females who have been raped, or who have been physically abused by a domestic partner, having a male-free space in which to heal is incredibly important.

I understand if transwomen don't want to use refuges and shelters designed for males. I'm happy to help fund services specifically for transgender people.

But the raw truth is that a large number of transwomen do not pass. They are easily identifiable as male. And that is a problem for females who are seeking a place to heal.

By allowing transwomen who read as males into female shelters, you end up denying those services to females who really do need a male-free space.

 

[tyr_13]

It gets applied to transwomen, because transwomen are male.

I'm all for transwomen getting support for sexual abuse, rape, and domestic violence. I'm also all for males in general getting support for sexual abuse, rape, and domestic violence. Nobody - I repeat NOBODY - wants them to be denied help.

But it still remains true that females are victimized at massively higher rates than males, or even transwomen. Females are the victims of sexual abuse and rape at rates well above either of those categories, and quite frankly there are many more of us. For females who have been raped, or who have been physically abused by a domestic partner, having a male-free space in which to heal is incredibly important.

I understand if transwomen don't want to use refuges and shelters designed for males. I'm happy to help fund services specifically for transgender people.

But the raw truth is that a large number of transwomen do not pass. They are easily identifiable as male. And that is a problem for females who are seeking a place to heal.

By allowing transwomen who read as males into female shelters, you end up denying those services to females who really do need a male-free space.

I know I said I wouldn't engage in the off-topic stuff, but the stuff like highlighted not being challenged, even by the 'burden of proof police' like Zigg, is why so many reasonable posters avoid the other thread.

It varies by survey, but on in three women and one in four men have been sexually assaulted in their lifetime. Between one in four to one in five women have been raped and between one in five to one in fourteen men have been raped*. Trans women face more than cis women. Duh. ******* duh.

And some women are sexually assaulted by women. Guess they're out there because your 'support' for sexual services only ever translate to advocacy or action when it's keeping the wrong women away from services.

*For any rational definition of 'rape' which should rightly include the 'made to penetrate' stat for everyone.

 

[lionking]

I know I said I wouldn't engage in the off-topic stuff, but the stuff like highlighted not being challenged, even by the 'burden of proof police' like Zigg, is why so many reasonable posters avoid the other thread.

It varies by survey, but on in three women and one in four men have been sexually assaulted in their lifetime. Between one in four to one in five women have been raped and between one in five to one in fourteen men have been raped*. Trans women face more than cis women. Duh. ******* duh.

And some women are sexually assaulted by women. Guess they're out there because your 'support' for sexual services only ever translate to advocacy or action when it's keeping the wrong women away from services.

*For any rational definition of 'rape' which should rightly include the 'made to penetrate' stat for everyone.

Would it be too much trouble to post links supporting these seemingly outlandish claims, hopefully from reputable studies? Men raped at roughly the same rate as women? It would have to be pretty authoritative research for me to buy that.

 

[Robin]

On the statistic of having been raped at least once in your life, it wouldn't surprise me that men weren't too far behind women.

 

[Ziggurat]

On the statistic of having been raped at least once in your life, it wouldn't surprise me that men weren't too far behind women.

I would be surprised. There are all sorts of biological reasons to think it unlikely. Women raping men should be much rarer than men raping women because women are generally much weaker than men. Men raping men should be much rarer than men raping women because it's not a viable reproductive strategy. These factors don't prove that a disparity in rape victimization statistics exists, but they are strong reasons to expect it to exist. So if someone claims it doesn't exist, I'd like evidence for that. It's an extraordinary claim.

tyr doesn't really do evidence for his claims, though. Asking him to back up his numbers is bigoted.

 

[tyr_13]

I know I said I wouldn't engage in the off-topic stuff, but the stuff like highlighted not being challenged, even by the 'burden of proof police' like Zigg, is why so many reasonable posters avoid the other thread.
It varies by survey, but on in three women and one in four men have been sexually assaulted in their lifetime. Between one in four to one in five women have been raped and between one in five to one in fourteen men have been raped*. Trans women face more than cis women. Duh. ******* duh.

And some women are sexually assaulted by women. Guess they're out there because your 'support' for sexual services only ever translate to advocacy or action when it's keeping the wrong women away from services.

*For any rational definition of 'rape' which should rightly include the 'made to penetrate' stat for everyone.

Would it be too much trouble to post links supporting these seemingly outlandish claims, hopefully from reputable studies? Men raped at roughly the same rate as women? It would have to be pretty authoritative research for me to buy that.

I would be surprised. There are all sorts of biological reasons to think it unlikely. Women raping men should be much rarer than men raping women because women are generally much weaker than men. Men raping men should be much rarer than men raping women because it's not a viable reproductive strategy. These factors don't prove that a disparity in rape victimization statistics exists, but they are strong reasons to expect it to exist. So if someone claims it doesn't exist, I'd like evidence for that. It's an extraordinary claim.

tyr doesn't really do evidence for his claims, though. Asking him to back up his numbers is bigoted.

I just love how well this exchange proves my argument.

Claim: 'LGBTQ members murdered by a partner don't count as targeted violence because they're sexually assaulted so much as kids'. Doesn't need support or citation.

Claim: 'Men and trans women are raped way less than cis women.' Contradicts the previous claim, doesn't need support or citation.

Claim: 'Men are raped less than women but not by as much as you claim and trans women are raped more.' Suddenly a claim that requires support and citations.

You'll aren't serious critical thinkers on this topic. You're pretending to be skeptics but select application is the opposite of that.

Hey, lionking, you recognize that the LGB in LGBTQ do in fact face oppression in western nations still? The bills to end legal gay marriage don't count now too?

 

[Ziggurat]

I just love how well this exchange proves my argument.

You fundamentally misunderstand the argument. I don't have to provide numbers, because unlike you I'm not claiming numbers. I provided examples (and not an exhaustive list) of how confounding variables can create a correlation without causation. The point isn't that any one of these other variables explains it all away, it's that you can't establish your claim if you don't account for other possibilities, which you never did.

And of course, if you want to claim numbers as you repeatedly have, then you have to actually source those numbers.

You'll aren't serious critical thinkers on this topic.

You're in no position to judge who is and isn't a critical thinker. You made a specific factual numeric claim, and you can't back it up.

 

[FatherLukeduke]

I just love how well this exchange proves my argument.

I love how you make wild claims then never back them up with any reputable statistics or peer reviewed studies. Just "trust me bro, it feels right".

In terms of rape by sex: like every crime this probably varies wildly depending on time period and location, however we're probably more interested in Western societies in recent years. The claim that men are raped at the same rate as women doesn't seem very plausible and doesn't appear to be supported by any statistics I can see. Here, for example, is the respected British Crime survey (run by the Office for National Statistics) findings:

For the year ending March 2020, the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) estimated that 3.8% of adults aged 16 to 74 years (1.6 million) had experienced sexual assault by rape or penetration (including attempts) since the age of 16 years (7.1% for women and 0.5% for men; see Sexual offences prevalence and victim characteristics – Appendix Tables, Table 1). More than one in 20 women (6.2%) had experienced rape (including attempts) since the age of 16 years, and 4.8% had experienced assault by penetration (including attempts; Figure 1).

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...amount-and-type-of-sexual-assault-experienced

So a woman 14 times more likely to be the victim of rape and attempted rape than a man. In England and Wales anyway. Which, outside of a few people on this thread, I doubt many people find particularly shocking.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And some women are sexually assaulted by women.

1% of sexual assaults are perpetrated by females. 99% are perpetrated by males.

Your casual dismissal is akin to someone saying "white people get killed by cops too!" You need to turn in your prog card now.

 

[Emily's Cat]

On the statistic of having been raped at least once in your life, it wouldn't surprise me that men weren't too far behind women.

Then why don't you go ******* look it up instead of making assumptions based on your imagination and acting like that makes them real?