Transgender hate crimes recorded by police go up 81%

[Steel Icarus]

This thread is meant to be about the stats concerning hate crimes against trans women.

Transgender people

 

[SpookyFrank]

Which is utterly abhorrent.

It's abhorrent to me that we're still casually referring to trans women as male but ymmv.

If what people are after is ths exclusion of trans women from particular spaces, then they should come out and say it instead of pretending that the issue here is 'men' or 'males' or 'penis people'. Whether or not you consider trans women to be women it should still be possible to simply say 'trans women' if that's who you're talking about, and to leave the loaded language and snide conflations at the door.

 

[8ball]

“Penis people”

Unfortunately was taking a sip of tea as I read that.

<finds some kitchen roll for laptop>

 

[JudithB]

And yes the most recent official statistics showed hate crimes against transgenderw people were more likely to involve violence against the person than any other strand.

You're a nasty piece of work pursuing this line.

Ah ok you mean violence against the person without injury. Yes this is not good.

I was looking at violence with injury.

 

[Athos]

It's abhorrent to me that we're still casually referring to trans women as male but ymmv.

If what people are after is ths exclusion of trans women from particular spaces, then they should come out and say it instead of pretending that the issue here is 'men' or 'males' or 'penis people'. Whether or not you consider trans women to be women it should still be possible to simply say 'trans women' if that's who you're talking about, and to leave the loaded language and snide conflations at the door.

I think that, if we use 'men' and 'women' to refer to gender, and 'male' and 'female' to refer to biological sex, that's not unreasonable. I'm quite happy with the idea that trans women are women, albeit that they're biologically male (if they weren't, they wouldn't be trans). Because biology is really important to many people's feeling if safety; we've had a poster on this thread explain her fear of the penis. I get your point, and I tend to use 'trans woman's where appropriate, but I think in some circumstances it's the least bad option (and certainly not on a par with the closure of rape shelters). But I'm happy to agree to disagree on that point.

I think there's a place for some shelters that exclude trans women, alongside others that include then. So as to ensure everyone had access to the support they need. Don't you?

 

[LDC]

It's abhorrent to me that we're still casually referring to trans women as male but ymmv.

Might be rude and pointlessly provocative, but it's not factually incorrect is it?

 

[Pickman's model]

Might be rude and pointlessly provocative, but it's not factually incorrect is it?

 

[SpookyFrank]

Might be rude and pointlessly provocative, but it's not factually incorrect is it?

I formulated several responses to this and in the end I opted for the simplest one:

Yes. Yes it's factually incorrect.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I think there's a place for some shelters that exclude trans women, alongside others that include then. So as to ensure everyone had access to the support they need. Don't you?

Not for me to say I'm sure. It would just be nice if those seeking to exclude trans women from x, y or z could say so in plain english, and not talk about excluding men or males when nobody ever suggested including them in the first place. It's a very deliberate trick and it stinks, in any context. Textbook passive aggression.

 

[andysays]

...Textbook passive aggression.

As opposed to this example of straight forward saying what you mean?

I wonder what our resident transphobes think about this?

 

[SpookyFrank]

As opposed to this example of straight forward saying what you mean?

Read that as passive aggressive if you like, it was intended as an honest question. We've had a range of answers to it, notably including 'transphobes are the real victims here' which will hopefully be hilarious looking back from 25 years in the future but which seems pretty fucking bleak right now, and especially in the context of this thread.

 

[belboid]

In those 'shelters' that exclude any biological males at all, what happens to the women who sneak men in? This is far and away the most common reason for biological males to be in refuges, so do the women who allow it get thrown out?

I write 'shelters' because that is a very, very, old fashioned term and idea of the places, really. They're not big shelters, everyone huddled together. For the last ten years, minimum, refuges have been turned into independent living units. Clustered together, and (usually, but not always) a communal space nearby.

Also, the possibility of a hostel for trans women (and trans men? or should they be separate again?) isn't going to be likely given both the significantly smaller population and the fact that the drive, for years, has been to allow the abused party to stay in their home, and not need to move out in the first place.

 

[purenarcotic]

Yes, bringing anybody back is an immediate move on. Refuges are confidential addresses, residents are not allowed to tell anyone where they are and cannot bring people back. Likewise this applies to staff - they shouldn’t be telling people the exact location of where they work. The less people know where a refuge is, the safer it is. It puts the safety of all the women and children living there at risk if the address is disclosed / someone is brought back.

This is made clear at initial referral stage and will be part of the house rules which residents sign on admission.

 

[purenarcotic]

It doesn’t matter if who they bring back is a woman or a man or someone of any gender identity. You can’t do it.

And not all refuges are self contained, plenty are shared living (own bedroom but sharing either bathroom or kitchen or both). What we have (thankfully) got rid of is the dorm type facilities where different people or families slept in the same room

 

[8ball]

Yes, bringing anybody back is an immediate move on. Refuges are confidential addresses, residents are not allowed to tell anyone where they are and cannot bring people back. Likewise this applies to staff - they shouldn’t be telling people the exact location of where they work. The less people know where a refuge is, the safer it is. It puts the safety of all the women and children living there at risk if the address is disclosed / someone is brought back.

This is made clear at initial referral stage and will be part of the house rules which residents sign on admission.

Good bit of clarification there - thanks. Explains the caginess when I won a prize at a church thing and suggested it be donated to a local refuge they were associated with (they insisted very politely but with absolute firmness that it was easier for them to drop it round rather than me).

I feel a bit dim not picking up on the reason for that now, I didn’t realise the addresses were confidential (as opposed to just being kept a bit quiet and the emphasis being on security).

 

[andysays]

In those 'shelters' that exclude any biological males at all, what happens to the women who sneak men in? This is far and away the most common reason for biological males to be in refuges, so do the women who allow it get thrown out?...

Should have known it would be the bloody women's fault again

 

[Gromit]

I'd hypothesize that trans crime has gone up because we're in that overlap where enlightenment has begun but as the vulnerable emerge to fight for their place in society the bigots still remain in force.

Like when black rights were acknowledged in America and there was a huge increase in violence as they tried to actually claim those rights.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Like when black rights were acknowledged in America and there was a huge increase in violence as they tried to actually claim those rights.

This is a great synopsis of the civil rights movement

 

[Thora]

I formulated several responses to this and in the end I opted for the simplest one:

Yes. Yes it's factually incorrect.

This is the point where I start having an issue. I don't believe someone can change biological sex through force of will.

I *do* believe that trans people exist, have every right to exist, and have every right to dress, present, feel, identify and be anyway they want. Gender is bullshit, so being any gender, no gender, the opposite gender, every gender etc etc is totally reasonable.

I consider myself supportive of trans rights. I don't think trans people should face discrimination in employment, housing, healthcare, education etc. I'm appalled that trans people are murdered and assaulted and face hate crimes.

But, I do believe that trans women are male and male adults are rightfully excluded from some women's places - female refuges, hospital wards, prisons, sports. I don't think female beauticians should be compelled to wax male intimate areas, I don't think women requesting female HCPs for intimate care should be compelled to accept male ones.

I do understand the argument that male spaces are not always safe for trans women and completely empathise with that fear. But that's a problem with male violence. If a male prison or toilet isn't safe for a male person who presents/identifies a certain way, then the solution should be (in my opinion) tackling the male violence, not forcing women to make space and give up some of their safety and comfort when there is little enough of that already.

 

[Gromit]

This is a great synopsis of the civil rights movement

Well no. Just a slice.

The full synopsis would be a few insanely brave people fought for rights (often at great cost), they won some rights, then everyone tried to claim those rights to huge resistance (and yet again much cost) whilst some insanely brave people fought for even more rights and the fight goes on.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'd hypothesize that trans crime has gone up because we're in that overlap where enlightenment has begun but as the vulnerable emerge to fight for their place in society the bigots still remain in force.

Like when black rights were acknowledged in America and there was a huge increase in violence as they tried to actually claim those rights.

Can I be the first to say "fuck off Gromit"?

 

[agricola]

Can I be the first to say "fuck off Gromit"?

to be not made of modelling clay, yes

 

[JudithB]

Thora

Nail on head x

 

[Steel Icarus]

I posted something I thought was quite important and did anyone go to the link and comment on it or did they prefer to tell me off for saying penis-haver? That isn't disagreement that's obfuscation and a way to silence debate.

In this case, according to the article, it was not considered a crime, but was logged as a “hate incident”.

I don’t know what that means in terms of stats and their breakdown, but it might be important.

 

[JudithB]

I doubt they asked anyone, it was one leaflet, probably knocked up by someone pretty junior in the PR department who was struggling to fit the words into the allotted space.
People seem very eager to draw even the most trivial things into some giant trans ideological narrative but the usual explanations are often pretty mundane and prior to the internet and social media no one would have bothered scouring all the literature charities put out in the hope of finding some small detail which can be used to own the trans in twitter.

Last I looked the word woman had less characters than cervix havers

This is an aside but it was an interesting post on twitter earlier, an article on the BBC about prostate cancer mentioned the word men several times. An article again on the BBC about cervical cancer did not mention the word woman in it once.

 

[Pickman's model]

Last I looked the word woman had less characters than cervix havers

This is an aside but it was an interesting post on twitter earlier, an article on the BBC about prostate cancer mentioned the word men several times. An article again on the BBC about cervical cancer did not mention the word woman in it once.

Can you link to this tweet?

 

[8ball]

Can you link to this tweet?

I find the first one plausible (the prostate cancer one), but as for the second, this one technically qualifies:

Hopes raised of ending cervical cancer

As in not one mention of "woman", but the word "women" crops up quite a few times...

 

[ginger_syn]

Can I be the first to say "fuck off Gromit"?

Yes, but on the other hand his is the first post on the actual subject of the thread for a while.

 

[8ball]

Yes, but on the other hand his is the first post on the actual subject of the thread for a while.

Fuck it. I know Gromit has said plenty of disagreeable things in the past, but the idea of some of the abuse being a reaction to trans people becoming more visible when some people would prefer the "out of sight, out of mind" approach doesn't seem so outrageous to me.

 

[planetgeli]

Last I looked the word woman had less characters than cervix havers

This is an aside but it was an interesting post on twitter earlier, an article on the BBC about prostate cancer mentioned the word men several times. An article again on the BBC about cervical cancer did not mention the word woman in it once.

Men are mentioned in relation to prostate cancer for specific reasons. Because men are notoriously bad at dealing with/admitting to health problems. Because men often don't know the difference between prostate and prostrate. Because even men who know they've got a prostate have no idea often what a prostate is and does. And therefore men think they are immune from this cancer happening to them.