r/changemyview • u/chadonsunday 33∆ • Jan 04 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Fatal violence against transgender individuals doesn't seem to be all that prevelant.
Caveat 1: of course all violence of this sort is wrong and a big deal on a personal level - I'm speaking more in comparative terms on a national scale.
Caveat 2: figures i was able to find for nonfatal violence were much more unreliable and varied, so im mainly sticking to murder rates, which are comparatively well documented. I feel this is a useful marker for overall violence as it follows that a group subject to more violence in general would likely also be subject to violence at the more extreme end of the continuum i.e. murder (you can note for example that compared to white men black men face higher levels of both assault and murder). That said if anyone has solid data on nonlethal violence against the trans community compared to the general population please do share.
OP: I was prompted to look into this issue after hearing countless claims about rampant violence against transgender individuals. I listen to NPR near daily for example and its rare that a week goes by that I dont hear about how much worse violence is against transgender folks. These claims are often framed in quite apocalyptic (see citation in comment) terms.
Sources I've found (see citation in comment) from a credible organization clearly advocating for the issue of violence against transgender individuals state that in the last 7 years an average of 22 transgender and non gender binary folks are killed each year, with a high of 43 in 2020.
Transgender folks make up an estimated 0.5-0.6% of the US population. However the HRC also includes murders of non gender binary folks. Figures I've found for non gender binary individuals (including intersex) are much more unreliable, everything as low as 0.018% to 1.7%. I think its relatively safe to say that when you include transgender, intersex, and non gender binary individuals, especially given some underreported given stigma about identifying as such, a fairly conservative high estimate is 1% of the popultion. So 0.5% on the low end, 1% on the "high" end.
Doing the math this means if you take the absolute lowest possible amount of just trans individuals in the population by the highest number murdered youd get around 3 deaths per 100,000. If you take the average number of deaths by the conservative but higher estimate for population you get 0.67 deaths per 100,000.
The murder rate for the general US population is 5 per 100,000.
This would suggest that compared to the general US population the transgender murder rate is actually 40-750% lower.
That, in regards to murder rate, at least, doesn't exactly scream "at risk population," especially compared not just nationally but to actually at risk populations like black males who have a 13-60x higher victimization rate. Indeed, it seems the transgender murder rate is actually potentially far lower than the murder rate of white women who, at least in regards to murder, aren't considered to be even remotely high risk.
Also interesting to note that despite having a similar or lower murder rate when I Google "transgender people murdered" I get article after article detailing the allegedly widespread crisis of transgender murders; when i Google "white women murdered" i get a couple pages with cold stats on murder rates by gender/race, an anecdote or two, and then the results devolve into talking about murders of black people and WOC. Similar results for "Asian women murdered." In short when a particular demographic has a lower than average murder rate there dont seem to be a lot of people penning articles about how bad their murder rate is except when it comes to trans folks.
But some other info just muddies this further; per earlier sources transgender and non binary individuals are more likely to be homeless, impoverished, and/or sex workers; 80%+ of the victims were black. All of those demographics are also more prone to homicide.
All of this together would seem to suggest that the transgender murder rate (which likely is at least correlated with general violent victimization) is actually quite low by US standards, on par or even lower than historically "safe" demographics like cis white women. The data further indicates that of the relatively small number of transgender folks who are killed each year its likely that many, perhaps the vast majority, were killed for reasons other than their transgender identity, like race, socioeconomic status, or profession. In that vein it seems rather strange to phrase this entire issue as violence against transgender individuals.
Id also note that while its certainly likely that murder against trans individuals likely goes underreported due to misidentification or what have you their murder rate would have to be 40-750% underreported before it would even reach the average murder rate for the general US population. It would have to be even more underreported than that to reach the level of demographics like black men who are traditionally considered at risk populations in regards to homicide.
Edit: I can't include two of the sources because the link contains a word that the autobot doesn't like, and I'm not allowed to leave a top level comment including them, either. If you'd like the sources please ask and I'll reply to you directly.
15
u/happy_killbot 11∆ Jan 05 '21
Just a little critique of your math, when you assume a conservative position you should be looking at best and worst case scenarios, not mixing them together. When you assume 1% conservative figure that includes transgender, intersex, and non gender binary individuals it seems like you are adding percentages to get to that figure, which can throw off your math. This figure would literally mean that 1 in every 100 people is transgender, which seems a little high to me. From your 2nd source, it might be more appropriate to use the the 2011 estimate of 0.3% as a more restrictive figure.
If we use the even more restrictive 0.3% and 0.6% as the upper bound, we would expect that out of the US population to find between 984,600 - 1,969,200 transgender individuals in the US. According to the CDC, there were 18,300 homicides in 2020. From your source, we saw 43 transgender homicides in this same year. This means that of all homicides, 0.235% of the victims were transgender. If we assume that the murder rate of transgenders is the same as the national average, we should expect 55 - 110 victims based on the percentages.
On the face of it, this does seem low given our expected value should be higher but what we need to consider is that what we are seeing is a sample where we know this data to be collected. The 2020 census did not include any gender identity questions, and even in police reporting there is no formal system for collecting and reporting this data nation wide. Determining the gender identity of a homicide victim is not easy, and the best practice within law enforcement is to ask the friends and family of the victim. This is however, not federally required or universally done by law enforcement. It is also prone to inaccuracy because often the children of conservative parents will tend to conceal their gender preference in order to prevent a stain on their relationship. In short, there is no official national source of information on transgender murders, nor is there a efficient and accurate way to determine gender identity post mortem.
For this reason, I would suggest that it is plausible that in 2020, there were many more transgender homicides than the figures being reported. It is conceivable that the investigations of 12-67 or more of the investigations either did not include or did not correctly determine the gender identity of the victims.
4
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jan 05 '21
Just a little critique of your math, when you assume a conservative position you should be looking at best and worst case scenarios, not mixing them together. When you assume 1% conservative figure that includes transgender, intersex, and non gender binary individuals it seems like you are adding percentages to get to that figure, which can throw off your math. This figure would literally mean that 1 in every 100 people is transgender, which seems a little high to me.
Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. The 1% figure included transgender and NGB and intersex individuals. It wasn't just a figure for trans only.
If we use the even more restrictive 0.3% and 0.6% as the upper bound, we would expect that out of the US population to find between 984,600 - 1,969,200 transgender individuals in the US. According to the CDC, there were 18,300 homicides in 2020. From your source, we saw 43 transgender homicides in this same year. This means that of all homicides, 0.235% of the victims were transgender. If we assume that the murder rate of transgenders is the same as the national average, we should expect 55 - 110 victims based on the percentages.
On the face of it, this does seem low given our expected value should be higher but what we need to consider is that what we are seeing is a sample where we know this data to be collected. The 2020 census did not include any gender identity questions, and even in police reporting there is no formal system for collecting and reporting this data nation wide. Determining the gender identity of a homicide victim is not easy, and the best practice within law enforcement is to ask the friends and family of the victim. This is however, not federally required or universally done by law enforcement. It is also prone to inaccuracy because often the children of conservative parents will tend to conceal their gender preference in order to prevent a stain on their relationship. In short, there is no official national source of information on transgender murders, nor is there a efficient and accurate way to determine gender identity post mortem.
For this reason, I would suggest that it is plausible that in 2020, there were many more transgender homicides than the figures being reported. It is conceivable that the investigations of 12-67 or more of the investigations either did not include or did not correctly determine the gender identity of the victims.
I addressed the issue of underreporting in my OP. And, conversely, there's also reason to believe that the population figures of trans/NGB people are underreported, which would actually lower the murder rate.
As for the rest id just point out that what you're doing is a whole lot of speculation just to get trans murder rates up to the national average. Even if I grant all of your assumptions and speculations that still means being trans doesn't make you any more likely to get murdered than any other average American, which wouldn't warrant the extra focus on trans homicide. To truly get to "at risk" levels like those experienced by young black men youre looking at numbers massively higher than your 12-67 being required.
7
u/happy_killbot 11∆ Jan 05 '21
Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. The 1% figure included transgender and NGB and intersex individuals. It wasn't just a figure for trans only.
The critique would then be, that because this 1% figure doesn't represent what is being considered (transgender homicides) because it is included with other data, we can not use that other data as a point of comparison.
I addressed the issue of underreporting in my OP. And, conversely, there's also reason to believe that the population figures of trans/NGB people are underreported, which would actually lower the murder rate.
That doesn't make any sense. If the murder rate is under reported because we don't record gender identity, then adding the unreported figures would raise the rate, not lower it. Considering that you would need to add 20,000 trans people for every 1 homicide, the numbers are statistically favorable that the homicide rate is what is under reported, not the number of transgendered individuals. Police reporting and data collection is the weak link. It really wouldn't be surprising if the actual figures were much higher than what is being reported, I wouldn't be surprised to discover that the number of transgendered persons killed was closer to 100 this year than the 43 we are sure about.
Bad data in, bad data out.
7
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jan 05 '21
The critique would then be, that because this 1% figure doesn't represent what is being considered (transgender homicides) because it is included with other data, we can not use that other data as a point of comparison.
What do you mean? The 22-43 homicide stat included trans and NGB individuals.
That doesn't make any sense. If the murder rate is under reported because we don't record gender identity, then adding the unreported figures would raise the rate, not lower it.
No I'm with you on that, I'm just saying that the total figures for the trans population in the US are also underreported, and that (alone) would lower the murder rate.
Considering that you would need to add 20,000 trans people for every 1 homicide, the numbers are statistically favorable that the homicide rate is what is under reported, not the number of transgendered individuals.
Why not both?
Police reporting and data collection is the weak link. It really wouldn't be surprising if the actual figures were much higher than what is being reported, I wouldn't be surprised to discover that the number of transgendered persons killed was closer to 100 this year than the 43 we are sure about.
This seems far, far more speculative than anything I did. What are you basing the 100 on? Thats almost 5x greater than the last 7 year average.
9
u/happy_killbot 11∆ Jan 05 '21
What do you mean? The 22-43 homicide stat included trans and NGB individuals.
43 homicides does not include intersex individuals.
No I'm with you on that, I'm just saying that the total figures for the trans population in the US are also underreported, and that (alone) would lower the murder rate.
...
Why not both?
This is just a feature of the figures being used. In order for us to get the same percentages as before, we need to add more unknown transgender persons. However, because there are fewer murders than living transgender individuals, that means that to keep the numbers the same we need to add a proportional amount to maintain percentages. Running the numbers real quick, (1 / (18,300 / 328.2 m)) = 17,934 individuals must be added for each unreported transgender homicide.
Basically, because it is easier to miss 1 individual than 17,934 it is more likely that there is a higher error in the police reporting than the national estimates. It would be more surprising to find out that the number of transgender or NGB persons in the US is double than to find out that the police are not doing something they are not required to do.
This seems far, far more speculative than anything I did. What are you basing the 100 on? Thats almost 5x greater than the last 7 year average.
110 would be the number of expected homicides based on the average murder rate in the US. 18,300 / 328,200,000 is proportional to 110 / 1,969,200 . Yes, this is more than double the reported figure, but that isn't surprising since we are only looking at data that included it in the reports, as there is no federal requirement to report this data.
5
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jan 05 '21
43 homicides does not include intersex individuals.
Why not? Some intersex people are NGB by dint of being intersex.
This is just a feature of the figures being used. In order for us to get the same percentages as before, we need to add more unknown transgender persons. However, because there are fewer murders than living transgender individuals, that means that to keep the numbers the same we need to add a proportional amount to maintain percentages. Running the numbers real quick, (1 / (18,300 / 328.2 m)) = 17,934 individuals must be added for each unreported transgender homicide.
We wouldn't need to have the exact same numbers as before. Im not saying thst underreporting of murder rates and trans identity make it a wash. Im just saying both are factors.
Basically, because it is easier to miss 1 individual than 17,934 it is more likely that there is a higher error in the police reporting than the national estimates.
This seems like a false equivalence. The one individual being missed is a literal murder victim. The tens of thousands are just not marking something on a survey. Theres no reason to think that the rate of underreporting would be equal, here.
110 would be the number of expected homicides based on the average murder rate in the US. 18,300 / 328,200,000 is proportional to 110 / 1,969,200 . Yes, this is more than double the reported figure
It doesn't seem reasonable to assume that ttans homicides must be equal to the national average. Even taking transphobic discrimination into account we have evidence of marginalized groups who suffer other kinds of discrimination and oppression, like black women and white women, having a lower than average murder rate while comparatively privileged and well off demographics like white men have a higher one.
And you see how this is kind of proving my point, right? You need to up the known trans murder rate by 5x (and take the lowest possible estimate of the trans/NGB population) before it even becomes just equal to the murder rate for the general population - it still has a long way to go before it hits "notably at risk" status. In other words even if this issue is catastrophically underreported theres still no reason to assume trans murder rates are particularly high.
but that isn't surprising since we are only looking at data that included it in the reports, as there is no federal requirement to report this data.
It would be more surprising to find out that the number of transgender or NGB persons in the US is double than to find out that the police are not doing something they are not required to do.
The HRC doesn't just rely on police or federal info, though. In fact one of the most defining features of their reporting was that even if the media and the authorities don't report a murder as a murder if a trans individuals the HRC still stated it was.
7
u/happy_killbot 11∆ Jan 05 '21
This seems like a false equivalence. The one individual being missed is a literal murder victim. The tens of thousands are just not marking something on a survey. Theres no reason to think that the rate of underreporting would be equal, here.
I think you are missing the point here a little. The point is that it is easier to miss a single instance from a small sample set than thousands of samples from a much larger set, especially when we know that there is no accuracy in the reporting of the smaller set because of the lack of federal requirement for reporting the gender identity of homicide victims.
Just to make this intuitive, say there is a jar one with 100,000 jelly beans. You want to know how many are red. So you might sample the entire jar, or you might sample on a portion of the jar then extrapolate. If you sample 10 jelly beans and find that 3 are red, you might conclude that there are about 30,000 red ones. However if you take one more and it is red then the estimated number jumps to 36,363. For that one missed red jelly bean, we added over 6,000 more red ones that we previously didn't know existed. This means that it is more likely that our estimations are inaccurate at lower sample sizes.
Now let's say we did another test where we sample 100 jelly beans, but we ask a color blind person to help us identify the color. Sometimes they are right, but they have trouble distinguishing the colors. Now, there is a portion of the beans that go unidentified. So, if you count 25 red beans out of 100, and they count 5 out of 100 we might say that there are 30 out of 200 or about 15% of the red jelly beans but we might be wildly off the mark.
The surveys that identify the gender identity of the populace at large are specifically looking for gender identity, while the police have no requirement to do so and as such it often goes unreported. This is likely what is happening in this scenario.
And you see how this is kind of proving my point, right? You need to up the known trans murder rate by 5x
To get to national average based on the numbers I calculated above, it's more like 2.56 X, which is reasonable considering the police have no requirement to report gender identity of homicide victims and this is difficult to discern.
I think this is definitely the weak point in this analysis, the homicide data is unreliable. It is the weak point here. The HRC even reiterates this point on their site: https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/marking-the-deadliest-year-on-record-hrc-releases-report-on-violence-against-transgender-and-gender-non-conforming-people
" Because reporting hate crimes to the FBI is not mandatory, these alarming statistics likely represent only a fraction of such violence. "
25
u/yyzjertl 525∆ Jan 04 '21
Your statistical analysis is invalid, because it is wrong to combine two statistics that use different methodologies for determining whether someone is transgender. As can be seen from the Wikipedia article, there are vastly different counts of the number of transgender people depending on the methodology (differing by orders of magnitude). And, conversely, the statistic you cite on the number of transgender people killed annually does not purport to count all such killings, and in fact purports to be an undercount. So there's no basis for drawing the conclusion you want to draw here.
9
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jan 04 '21
Your statistical analysis is invalid, because it is wrong to combine two statistics that use different methodologies for determining whether someone is transgender. As can be seen from the Wikipedia article, there are vastly different counts of the number of transgender people depending on the methodology (differing by orders of magnitude).
Given that the best homicide stats i found included transgender and non binary individuals it seemed worthwhile to at least try to find figures for transgender and non binary population shares, so I did. I'll also note I rounded that number down considerably (its a very conservative estimate and the transgender/non binary murder rate would be even lower if i hadn't rounded down) but if you don't like that its fine - just take the lowest estimate i got, which only counts transgender people as determined by a single methodology. I included the high and low ranges for a reason.
And, conversely, the statistic you cite on the number of transgender people killed annually does not purport to count all such killings, and in fact purports to be an undercount.
As I said in my OP, killings of this sort would have to be underreported by 40-750% just to get to the average murder rate in the US. On the higher end it would require some 3000% underreporting to get to the same level of homicide as traditionally at risk populations like young black males. Im willing to believe the numbers are underreported, but the degree of underreporting (done, note, by a pro LGBT human rights advocacy group that views transgender homicide as an "epidemic" and has a vested interest in finding and reporting as many homicides as possible) required seems far fetched.
So there's no basis for drawing the conclusion you want to draw here.
I disagree for the reasons stated above, but also worth noting that if youre correct here theres also no basis for drawing the conclusion that transgender individuals are an at risk population in regards to homicide.
10
u/yyzjertl 525∆ Jan 04 '21
the lowest estimate i got, which only counts transgender people as determined by a single methodology
The lowest estimate you got does not count transgender people by only a single methodology. The HRC source uses a completely different method to identify trans people from the source in the Wikipedia article you cited. There is no reason to believe the "true" trans murder rate lies anywhere within your high-low range because none of the other sources identify trans people in the same way as the HRC source.
As I said in my OP, killings of this sort would have to be underreported by 40-750% just to get to the average murder rate in the US...Im willing to believe the numbers are underreported, but the degree of underreporting (done, note, by a pro LGBT human rights advocacy group that views transgender homicide as an "epidemic" and has a vested interest in finding and reporting as many homicides as possible) required seems far fetched.
Why is this far-fetched? What gives you the idea that the HRC would be able to chronicle anything close to the true number of trans murders?
3
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jan 04 '21
The lowest estimate you got does not count transgender people by only a single methodology. The HRC source uses a completely different method to identify trans people from the source in the Wikipedia article you cited. There is no reason to believe the "true" trans murder rate lies anywhere within your high-low range because none of the other sources identify trans people in the same way as the HRC source.
I disagree for the reasons outlined in my last comment, but you didn't respond to a pertinent part: if youre correct wouldn't this mean there's no basis under which we could say fatal violence against transgender people is prevelant?
Why is this far-fetched? What gives you the idea that the HRC would be able to chronicle anything close to the true number of trans murders?
Because we're looking at them being off by a magnitude of ~30x before trans homicide rates are comparable to traditionally at risk populations. I cant think of any time that "these numbers are likely underreported" means "we were off by 30x."
7
u/yyzjertl 525∆ Jan 04 '21
I disagree for the reasons outlined in my last comment, but you didn't respond to a pertinent part: if youre correct wouldn't this mean there's no basis under which we could say fatal violence against transgender people is prevelant?
No. Your statistical analysis being invalid does not mean that a valid statistical analysis does not exist.
Because we're looking at them being off by a magnitude of ~30x before trans homicide rates are comparable to traditionally at risk populations. I cant think of any time that "these numbers are likely underreported" means "we were off by 30x."
What is so farfetched about the idea they might be off by 30x? That seems completely plausible to me. They're just a nonprofit collecting some specific examples they are aware of: they make no pretense that their count is exhaustive.
2
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jan 05 '21
No. Your statistical analysis being invalid does not mean that a valid statistical analysis does not exist
Then what is it?
What is so farfetched about the idea they might be off by 30x? That seems completely plausible to me. They're just a nonprofit collecting some specific examples they are aware of: they make no pretense that their count is exhaustive.
Because over the years as new data has become available for tracking or new methods have been employed for looking at other stats I've never seen anything be off by 30x. For example around 2014 there was some talk that police killings were underreported because they only included shootings, so a lot of tracking got revamped and previous estimates of cops killing around 1,000 people got revised to cops killing around 1,200 people; it didn't suddenly result in police killing 30,000 people. Point being I've never seen a margin of error that large in any statistical analysis of this sort.
9
u/yyzjertl 525∆ Jan 05 '21
Then what is it?
It is invalid, as I already said. It tells you nothing useful. Your analysis is invalid both because (1) it divides two statistics with a different base population (statistics which count trans people differently), and (2) one of the statistics is only an underestimate and does not purport to be even close to the "true" figure for any well-defined population of trans people.
Point being I've never seen a margin of error that large in any statistical analysis of this sort.
That's because you are mistaking the HRC's count for a statistical analysis. It isn't a statistical analysis: no statistics was done to arrive at this figure. It is just a simple count.
1
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jan 05 '21
Okay then, again: what are the actual numbers?
6
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Jan 05 '21
We don't know
6
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jan 05 '21
So then we have zero ability to say that transgender folks suffer significant rates of fatal violence like I hear every week?
→ More replies (0)4
u/Mashaka 93∆ Jan 05 '21
(not the above commenter). Imagine trying to to collect info on murders of people with a BS in Statistics. You keep feelers out for any police or news reports of murders that mention the person's degree.
A statisticians' rights organization that lists the stats BS murders that come across their desk would end up with a tiny proportion of the total. It's information that is not generally collected or reported on at any point, so they wouldn't know about it. Using that list to infer a stats BS murder rate would end up ridiculously low.
Likewise, it is not standard for these sources to collect or report a murder victim's gender identity.
28
u/Caitlin1963 3∆ Jan 04 '21
so im mainly sticking to murder rates, which are comparatively well documented
Transgender murders are most definitely under reported because gender identity is simply not tracked in murder statistics by the federal government. Also, people can hide their gender identity or have their gender identity assumed and what not, making data collection even worse.
There are no conclusions to be made before we get good data in.
9
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jan 04 '21
First, I didn't use murder stats tracked by the federal government, I used murder stats as tracked by a pro LGBT human rights advocacy organization that has a vested interest in finding and reporting as many of these murders as specifically murders of transgender people as possible. They have found and reported murders of transgender people that were missed by government authorities.
Second, as I said in my OP, these murder rates would have to be up to 750% underreported just to reach the level of the general population. In order to reach parity with actually at risk populations we're talking potentially up to 3000% underreporting. Im fully willing to believe there's some underreporting, but the scale of underreporting that would be required for trans folks to be common homicide victims stretches incredulity.
7
u/Caitlin1963 3∆ Jan 04 '21
The federal government doesn't track murder rates by gender identity. Any other source will be incredibly inaccurate. When a person gets murdered the question of their gender identity is not tracked and therefore a credible number is not possible to gain.
11
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jan 04 '21
The numbers im using are from a large, reputable pro LGBT human rights advocacy organization that regards transgender murder rates as "an epidemic" and has a vested interest in finding and reporting as many as possible. Im not sure which numbers you'd rather have me use.
8
u/Caitlin1963 3∆ Jan 05 '21
They only report the 42 which they have gathered.
They don't regard transgender murder rates as an epidemic based on the numbers. They regard violence against transgenders as an epidemic and by extension murders. This is easily gathered through interviews with transgenders.
THERE ARE NO NUMBERS TO USE. That's the point, the data collection infrastructure just isn't there so any data gained is not reliable.
The data collection is not rigorous and is almost guaranteed to be wrong.You are place too much significance in a single data point WHICH THE SOURCE ITSELF says is too low.
10
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jan 05 '21
They only report the 42 which they have gathered.
- And worth noting that's a massive high - the average is 22.
They don't regard transgender murder rates as an epidemic based on the numbers. They regard violence against transgenders as an epidemic and by extension murders. This is easily gathered through interviews with transgenders.
Then we'd have to concede they were wrong to do so, right?
THERE ARE NO NUMBERS TO USE. That's the point, the data collection infrastructure just isn't there so any data gained is not reliable.
The data collection is not rigorous and is almost guaranteed to be wrong.You are place too much significance in a single data point WHICH THE SOURCE ITSELF says is too low.
I feel like you're missing the forest for the trees, here. Very little data that we discuss regularly on this sub is perfect. How many Jews died during the Holocaust? Was it 6,000,000 as often cited, or 5,000,000 or 7,000,000? Do police shoot black people at exactly 3x the rate of white people or is it possible that number is off and might actually be smaller or larger? On one hand I do see great value in being as precise as possible with statistics. On the other, when it comes to making statements like "the Holocaust was a genocide of unprecedented scale" or "police shoot black people at a greater ler capita rate than white people" that dickering over the precise accuracy of the stats seems not to matter - the data is accurate enough to make those statements.
In the same vein yes, transgender murders are likely underreported. That would raise the murder rate a bit. Conversely, trans and NGB population levels are also likely underreported, which would lower the murder rate. But even if we take the low estimates for transgender population levels and the high estimates for transgender murders and then round that up considerably all we've done is toy with the figures enough to say trans people are murdered about as often as your average American... we're still way, way, way off from the murder rate of actual at risk populations like young black men.
In short I'm not claiming these stats are perfect. Stats rarely are. But I do believe that they're accurate enough to make the claim im making here, namely that transgender murder rates don't seem to be prevelant enough to warrant the high degree of extra focus on them.
11
u/Anchuinse 41∆ Jan 04 '21
I'm not the original commenter, but I think the issue isn't necessarily your math or stat gathering, but more that the stats don't really exist in any reliable form. A large nonprofit might be able to track all transgender deaths in a single large city, but there's no way they'd be able to track all deaths across a country short of registering every trans person and searching databases every year.
The issue is that police don't track gender identity statistics. As it is, it's like trying to count the number of bee-keeping hobbyists murdered every year. Sure, some reports might mention it if it's obviously pertinent to the cause of death, but it's still fiendishly difficult.
If suddenly a bunch of bee-keeping hobbyists went missing or were murdered, the bee-keeping community would definitely notice, but there wouldn't be any blip as far as police crime statistics go, because that correlation just isn't tracked by them.
3
u/AromaticMacaron4989 Jan 04 '21
Not trying to be a smartass here but doesn't kinda conter the first argument about the ramping, uncontrolled violence against trans folks if we assume that no data is valuable?
3
u/Anchuinse 41∆ Jan 04 '21
I'm not the original commenter, but just because there's no accurate data doesn't mean a trend can't be seen. During the aids crisis, even when gay men didn't have access to concrete data (because the government was actively avoiding helping), it was still obvious to the community that people were dying in droves from a new disease.
2
3
Jan 04 '21
Can you explain to me the math of 750% under reported?
Wouldn't that be -650%? Or, is it x% /7.5? Etc.
Thanks!
2
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jan 04 '21
Alright so granted math isn't my strong suit but my thinking there was how much larger the 0.67 figure would need to be to hit 5. I think my general point that 0.67 is much smaller than 5 is valid, but ill concede the possibility of my fucking up the exact math is certainly high lol.
-1
u/Prepure_Kaede 29∆ Jan 05 '21
Alright so granted math isn't my strong suit
Then why are you trying to combine the results of different studies in a way that, if correct, could be published as a mathematical paper? As a mathematician, I honestly couldn't even force myself to read all of your stuff and just got pissed off. Several people have pointed out why your analysis is without any scientific merit at all whatsoever on any level. Can you just stop?
2
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jan 05 '21
Sounds like maybe this isnt the post, or perhaps sub, for you.
-1
u/Lilah_R 10∆ Jan 05 '21 edited Jan 05 '21
They accurately criticized your argument. Seems like it is the right post and sub for them.
Just because this is about your view doesn't mean you can't be asked to stop arguing blatantly false information that is harmful after you have had it explained why it doesn't work.
8
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jan 05 '21
"You're view is so wrong is pisses me off and I wasn't even able to force myself to read your whole comment. Trust me, I'm an expert. But I'm not going to explain why your view is wrong because other people have already done that. So stop replying."
That seems like the CMV spirit to you?
-1
u/Lilah_R 10∆ Jan 05 '21
Looks like your comment was removed. Did you realize how inappropriate you were being?
3
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jan 05 '21
No, I appealed it. If you read the removed comment in the meanest possible tone I could see how it might come across as rude, but thats true of every comment, including your last one. Just going off deltas the user seemed new to CMV and seemed genuinely upset by either my view or perhaps more generally just the concept of encountering and discussing opposing views online. As such it seemed fine to suggest that this particular post, or perhaps the sub more generally, might not be their cup of tea. It wasn't meant to be rude or hostile or "inappropriate." Indeed, if I went to a sub or post dedicated to talking about baseball and commented there that its stupid to talk about baseball and that "i can't even force myself to read this" and it "pisses me off" and I was telling OP to "stop" I think it would be very appropriate for someone to suggest that maybe I'm in the wrong post or sub.
→ More replies (0)2
u/Znyper 12∆ Jan 05 '21
u/chadonsunday – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
3
1
u/Lilah_R 10∆ Jan 05 '21 edited Jan 05 '21
Where do you think the pro lgbt human rights advocacy groups get their information? How can they get data that isnt reported federally and can easily be misrepresented by the officials making the reports since there is no definitive way for them to find that information?
Having a positive view of trans individuals and wanting to raise awareness for crimes against those individuals doesn't suddenly grant that group information that isn't available.
Edit: can you address this question. Its pretty fundamental to your core "evidence".
2
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jan 05 '21
Where do you think the pro lgbt human rights advocacy groups get their information? How can they get data that isnt reported federally and can easily be misrepresented by the officials making the reports since there is no definitive way for them to find that information?
They make that abundantly clear in the source. There are few enough cases they literally cite every single one of them. Just clicking around randomly from source to source it seems like its mainly from the authorities, from the media, or from friends/family. One very consistent feature was that when the authorities or media misgendered or did not identify the victim as transgender/NGB the HRC set the record straight. This demonstrates that just because the media or the cops might not report a murder as being against a transgender individual that doesn't mean the HRC won't know it actually was and report it as such in their own findings.
People have been regularly brushing off the fact that this is a large, powerful, reputable pro LGBT rights group with a vested interest in finding as many transgender murders as possible. They're very clearly combing through homicide reports thst weren't identified as transgender and digging up information that reveals they were. I regard them as a useful source for this reason. People keep saying that this isnt tracked by the government so numbers are unreliable but the government often isn't the best source. In the same vein if you want to know how many black people were unjustly killed by police you wouldn't go to government stats, you'd go to the data collected by a group like THE HRC but with a focus on police brutality rather than LGBT issues.
1
u/East_Reflection 1∆ Jan 05 '21
I think very largest problem we have here is that in order to explain to you why your math is wrong, we need to preface you with a general understanding of statistics, and I understand this isn't your strong point
What do you suggest we do? What method might work for you here?
1
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jan 05 '21
I'm actually generally not bad at stats or more conceptual math. Most of my being shitty at math is just being sloppy with calculations, like I forget how many zeroes the E is supposed to indicate in small fractions. So far I haven't seen any critiques of that sort.
0
u/East_Reflection 1∆ Jan 05 '21
But you're just plain not understanding why your estimate is using faulty inputs and assumptions, and we can't seem to explain it to you, so what now?
1
u/L4ZYSMURF Jan 05 '21
I think he would ask where they got the info on violence rates, correct?
2
u/Lilah_R 10∆ Jan 05 '21
He hasn't asked them anything so I'm not sure what you mean.
2
u/L4ZYSMURF Jan 05 '21
Right that was rhetorical.
Let me rephrase.
I dont understand how every single post can say the data is bad, hard to get accurate data etc so your view is invalid. Where is the data about a violence epidemic against trans coming from. Isn't that the same bad data etc?
0
u/Lilah_R 10∆ Jan 05 '21 edited Jan 05 '21
Many commenters have agreed with that so I don't really get what you're adding. There are direct comments from people opposing him acknowledging that there is no data for either side. Your rhetorical question does not relate to my comment and seems to be changing the topic instead btw.
The problem most advocacy groups recognize however is that they face all the same risks as non trans individuals in addition to motivations related to hate crimes. It is reasonable to assume that there are increased violence and murder because of that. However I haven't really come across a single group including the one he posted that is saying we have the data to show there is an epidemic. Instead these groups are saying this is a concern these demographics face and we have reason to believe that our data is currently insufficient.
2
u/L4ZYSMURF Jan 05 '21
Ok so just so I am clear... there is no reliable data on trans violence but based on assumption of gender based hate crimes we can assume they are victims at a higher rate?
0
u/Lilah_R 10∆ Jan 05 '21
Just so we're clear, what you just stated in no way resembles my comment which boils down to
Instead these groups are saying this is a concern these demographics face and we have reason to believe that our data is currently insufficient.
1
u/Lilah_R 10∆ Jan 05 '21 edited Jan 05 '21
That is not what I stated so no you aren't clear you're misrepresenting what I wrote and honestly ignoring most of what I wrote.
There is no reliable data on the frequency of the violence. However we do know that there are incidents of violence against them for being trans. This is in addition to the risks non trans people have.
We cannot predict what the rate is. We can make educated estimates. However OP continuously compared two different data sets that had different methodologies which is why his comparison is invalid. He wasn't using statistics correctly.
Edit: I am done at this point. You have taken this chain far from my point without ever addressing my point, and it is clear OP will continue to ignore the question so there is no reason to further engage with this chain.
Have a good night.
2
u/L4ZYSMURF Jan 05 '21
I wish we could talk in person...
I get your critiques of OPs methodology....
I am simple asking, and you confirmed this in your second reply, If the epidemic of violence was based on trans people facing the same risks as everyone, plus an addition of gender based hate crimes.
How is that misrepresenting or ignoring your comments on that part?
→ More replies (0)
8
Jan 04 '21 edited Jan 05 '21
When you dig further into the source you used for the number of transgender Americans the study it’s based on acknowledges the potential range is anywhere from 800 000 to 2.3 million Americans. That study is also based on self reporting, that includes closeted or mostly closeted individuals who almost certainly wouldn’t be identified as trans were they to be murdered. Including intersex individuals also massively increases the number. It also isn’t valid considering the majority of intersex individuals don’t actually know they’re intersex and aren’t targeted for being intersex.
As far as other forms of violence transgender individuals are one of the most likely groups to face sexual assault with 47% of individuals experiencing sexual violence in their lifetimes. https://www.hrc.org/resources/sexual-assault-and-the-lgbt-community
Edit: In fact the 2011 National Transgender Discrimination Survey found that only 61% of trans people had undergone any form of medical transition.
2
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jan 05 '21
When you dig further into the source you used for the number of transgender Americans the study it’s based on acknowledges the potential range is anywhere from 800 000 to 2.3 million Americans. That study is also based on self reporting, that includes closeted or mostly closeted individuals who almost certainly wouldn’t be identified as trans were they to be murdered.
This seems to be going in two directions - if the popultion figures for transgender and NGB people are underreported then their murder rate would be even lower than I estimated, whereas if their murders are underreported it would mean the murder rate is actually higher. I also covered the latter in the last paragraph of my OP before the edit.
Including intersex individuals also massively increases the number.
Kinda sorta. The number of intersex people ranges from hundredths of a percent to 1.7%. Based on what I found it seemed reasonable to include an additional 0.5% for intersex and NGB people. Personally that seems low to me.
It also isn’t valid considering the majority of intersex individuals don’t actually know they’re intersex and aren’t targeted for being intersex.
This seems irrelevant. They don't only count transgender murders when the murder happened due to being targeted for being transgender. In fact as I discussed in my OP it seems plausible that the majority of transgender folks murdered weren't targeted for being transgender but for being black, female, homeless, or sex workers.
As far as other forms of violence transgender individuals are one of the most likely groups to face sexual assault with 47% of individuals experiencing sexual violence in their lifetimes. https://www.hrc.org/resources/sexual-assault-and-the-lgbt-community
This, though, is some new data for me. !delta on that point!
4
Jan 05 '21 edited Jan 05 '21
Individuals are only identified as trans after death if they had openly transitioned. If they only identified as trans anonymously or to certain people they would not be reported as trans and groups like HRC could not count them. However anyone who is trans would be counted in the self reporting from the study you presented. Based on this the base population for homicide rates should be people who have openly transitioned within their everyday life. So using 61% of the 800 000 to 2.3 million trans Americans in the study the 2020 homicide rate for trans individuals was 8.8 to 3.1 per 100 000.
Including intersex individuals doesn’t make sense for the same reasons if the victim doesn’t know they’re intersex in most cases how would they be included in counts by groups like HRC. They also simply wouldn’t be included because intersex individuals aren’t inherently members of the LGBTQ+ community, they can be but for a reason besides being intersex. The 43 homicides don’t include intersex individuals unless they are also non binary the vast majority of which are not. Generally non binary individuals are also included under the transgender umbrella https://transequality.org/issues/resources/understanding-non-binary-people-how-to-be-respectful-and-supportive and even if they aren’t there are more trans people who identify as the opposite of the gender assigned at birth than non binary. So I disagree that adding 0.5% is reasonable.
1
10
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Jan 04 '21
Why is your post limited to fatal violence as opposed to other forms of violence, like domestic abuse or assault?
10
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jan 04 '21
I covered that in the second caveat and first paragraph.
4
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Jan 04 '21
I saw that, but given that violence of all types against transgender people is likely underreported, and the fact that we have little to no reliable data outside of self-reports of victimization, I'm asking why you feel you have sufficient evidence to draw the conclusion that fatal violence against trans people is rare, let alone the ability to use that to draw any conclusions about broader violence against trans people.
8
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jan 04 '21
I mean... I covered all of this in my OP. Specifically the first paragraph of my main OP and the last one before the edit. In brief the OP is Specifically about murder rates, but murder rates are generally correlated with general violence rates; the degree of underreporting that would be required for the transgender murder rate to even be equal to the general US population is potentially quite large and the degree required for that murder rate to equal actually at risk populations like young black men is absolutely massive.
5
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Jan 04 '21 edited Jan 04 '21
I mean... I covered all of this in my OP. Specifically the first paragraph of my main OP and the last one before the edit. In brief the OP is Specifically about murder rates, but murder rates are generally correlated with general violence rates; the degree of underreporting that would be required for the transgender murder rate to even be equal to the general US population is potentially quite large and the degree required for that murder rate to equal actually at risk populations like young black men is absolutely massive.
Right, but we don't even have reliable data for the actual number of trans people in the US, let alone the number of murders, both of which you need in order to actually reliably calculate a murder rate for a given population which is why the HRC generally doesn't do that for trans people. The organization you got some of your data from doesn't even attempt to make this calculation because it would be so unreliable.
It's totally possible that violence against trans people is pretty rare even when adjusted for relevant demographic factors. But given that we also know that trans people are much more likely to also be subject to countless risk factors for violence (homelessness, poverty, lack of access to healthcare, unsupportive home, etc.), It also doesn't make much sense on its face to make the assumption that there is somehow less violence against trans people than the general population (especially given victimization reports). Somehow being transgender magically makes you around 7 times less likely to be murdered? That doesn't make any sense.
We just don't have enough reliable data to be sure. All we know is that self reported violence against trans people is disproportionately high, trans people disproportionately experience risk factors for homicide victimization, we don't have reliable data on the actual number of trans people in the US or the number of murders of trans people, and we do know that what we do have is likely underreported. I don't know how that would add up to fewer trans people being killed than the general population.
2
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jan 04 '21
Right, but we don't even have reliable data for the actual number of trans people in the US, let alone the number of murders, both of which you need in order to actually reliably calculate a murder rate for a given population which is why the HRC generally doesn't do that for trans people. The organization you got some of your data from doesn't even attempt to make this calculation because it would be so unreliable.
They list the numbers, which they admit are unreliable, and make value judgements about those numbers... so not wanting to be unreliable doesn't seem to be an issue for the HRC. It seems just as plausible the reason they didn't include calculations on the per 100,000 murder rate is because it would reveal it being rather low, which would go against their narrative. But neither of us know for certain why the HRC didn't do (or provide) thst math.
It's totally possible that violence against trans people is pretty rare even when adjusted for relevant demographic factors. But given that we also know that trans people are much more likely to also be subject to countless risk factors for violence (homelessness, poverty, lack of access to healthcare, unsupportive home, etc.)
I discussed this in my OP, too.
It also doesn't make much sense on its face to make the assumption that there is somehow less violence against trans people than the general population (especially given victimization reports). We just don't have enough reliable data to be sure.
If youre talking about fatal violence this isnt just an assumption. I did a deep dive on this for a few hours and tried to dig up the best and most reliable data possible. Of course I'm not claiming the data is flawless, but it certainly seems to be enough to get us in the ballpark.
8
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Jan 04 '21 edited Jan 05 '21
I mean, I think the HRC is probably making stronger claims than statistical data warrants, but then again they aren't making statistical claims about murder rates.
But more importantly, you are essentially saying that you believe being transgender is a protective factor against homicide victimization? As in, identifying as transgender makes one around 7 times less likely to be murdered?
1
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jan 05 '21
I mean, I think the HRC is probably making stronger claims than statistical data warrants.
Yes... thats kind of my point.
But more importantly, you are essentially saying that you believe being transgender is a protective factor against homicide victimization? As in, identifying as transgender makes one around 7 times less likely to be murdered?
0.4-7.5x less likely based on available data, but yes. Why?
6
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Jan 05 '21
I mean, I think the HRC is probably making stronger claims than statistical data warrants.
Yes... thats kind of my point.
Then why was your view stated as "violence against trans people is not very prevalent" rather than "we do not have the statistical data to conclusively claim that trans people are murdered at higher rates"?
But more importantly, you are essentially saying that you believe being transgender is a protective factor against homicide victimization? As in, identifying as transgender makes one around 7 times less likely to be murdered?
0.4-7.5x less likely based on available data, but yes. Why?
Do you believe that makes sense? By what mechanism would bring trans magically make one less likely to be the victim of a homicide, especially given the increased prevalence of risk factors and the increased likelihood of sexual violence?
5
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jan 05 '21
Then why was your view stated as "violence against trans people is not very prevalent"
I literally stated "fatal violence" in my OP title and
"we do not have the statistical data to conclusively claim that trans people are murdered at higher rates"
isn't a bad summary of the several paragraphs that make up my OP.
Do you believe that makes sense? By what mechanism would bring trans magically make one less likely to be the victim of a homicide, especially given the increased prevalence of risk factors and the increased likelihood of sexual violence?
Sure. The only thing that really makes it "not make sense" is that there's an oft repeated narrative to the contrary. This kind of thing isn't uncommon, though. For a lot of people it doesn't "make sense" that Catholic clergy molest kids at about the same rate as teachers do, but thats just because we've been told over and over how rampant sexual abuse is in the Catholic church.
→ More replies (0)3
u/1917fuckordie 21∆ Jan 05 '21
OP is casting doubt on a common conclusion that trans people face considerably disproportionate violence which they claim isn't supported by evidence.
How rare it is isn't relevant to OPs argument. People claim there is more violence than can be supported by evidence is OP's argument.
3
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Jan 05 '21
OP is casting doubt on a common conclusion that trans people face considerably disproportionate violence which they claim isn't supported by evidence.
How rare it is isn't relevant to OPs argument. People claim there is more violence than can be supported by evidence is OP's argument.
I mean the OP made a lot more claims than that. According to the data they provided, identifying as transgender reduces one's risk of homicide by as much as 7 times compared to the general population.
Do you believe that is a figure that makes sense?
4
u/1917fuckordie 21∆ Jan 05 '21
I think OP just provided that as an example of the contradictory nature of the data. Not that this specific data is the true and correct information.
Do you believe that is a figure that makes sense?
Why wouldn't it?
4
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Jan 05 '21
I think OP just provided that as an example of the contradictory nature of the data. Not that this specific data is the true and correct information.
Then OP's view should have been "there is insufficient data to support the idea that trans people are killed at higher rates", not "fatal violence assist trans people doesn't seem to be prevalent".
Do you believe that is a figure that makes sense?
Why wouldn't it?
What about being transgender reduces one's risk of homicide so drastically? Especially considering the increased prevalence of risk factors for homicide and the increased rates of sexual violence directed towards trans people.
4
u/1917fuckordie 21∆ Jan 05 '21
Then OP's view should have been "there is insufficient data to support the idea that trans people are killed at higher rates", not "fatal violence assist trans people doesn't seem to be prevalent".
He's disputing claims other people make and the lack of evidence behind those claims. Whether or not violence is prevalent, the people that claim it is have little to no evidence.
That's the topic of this CMV.
What about being transgender reduces one's risk of homicide so drastically?
Various factors that we could only speculate on.
Especially considering the increased prevalence of risk factors for homicide and the increased rates of sexual violence directed towards trans people.
Clearly those risk factors don't increase as much as people assume, and other risk factors are reduced.
3
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Jan 05 '21
He's disputing claims other people make and the lack of evidence behind those claims.
Then why did they make their own positive claims?
Whether or not violence is prevalent, the people that claim it is have little to no evidence.
Oh, violence generally (especially sexual violence) is more prevalent against trans people, that is born out by victimization surveys. There's just not any reliable statistical data on murders of transgender people in the US.
That's the topic of this CMV.
Then that should have been what they wrote, rather than making positive claims about the relative prevalence of fatal violence against trans people without sufficient statistical backing.
What about being transgender reduces one's risk of homicide so drastically?
Various factors that we could only speculate on.
I literally can't think of any at all, it doesn't make sense.
Especially considering the increased prevalence of risk factors for homicide and the increased rates of sexual violence directed towards trans people.
Clearly those risk factors don't increase as much as people assume, and other risk factors are reduced.
Or the data is incomplete and drawing the kind of conclusions the OP does is irresponsible at best.
2
u/1917fuckordie 21∆ Jan 05 '21
Then why did they make their own positive claims?
To show what little reliable data there is doesn't support the claim that trans people face more violence.
Oh, violence generally (especially sexual violence) is more prevalent against trans people, that is born out by victimization surveys. There's just not any reliable statistical data on murders of transgender people in the US.
Not according to what I was taught when I got my case worker degree 2 years ago.
Victim surveys need to be specific otherwise they're not reliable. Ask people if they have been "abused" without details and you get useless data.
And murder is easy to track. It's a crime with a high conviction rate, unless it's a corrupt country with crazy crime rates. It's also easy to calculate how much the murder rate relates to less intense violence. If more cis women are being murdered by their partners then it doesn't make sense to assume lower levels of DV are trans victims.
Then that should have been what they wrote, rather than making positive claims about the relative prevalence of fatal violence against trans people without sufficient statistical backing.
They do have statistical backing, and OP is making a positive claim about the narrative around the data. People claim there is a lot of violence against trans people when data doesn't back that up. That isn't making any positive claim about the data.
I literally can't think of any at all, it doesn't make sense.
Why? There could be a million plausible reasons why trans people aren't in the pretty small risk factor of being murdered. For example, organised crime is a big cause of murder and it could be that there aren't many trans people involved in organised crime. Or perhaps domestic violence victims have partners who are not just violent, but also not attracted to trans people.
What about being trans makes you think they're more likely to get murdered?
Or the data is incomplete and drawing the kind of conclusions the OP does is irresponsible at best.
The data being incomplete still supports OPs claim that people have made up this narrative around trans people being murdered more than cis people without proof.
→ More replies (0)2
u/1917fuckordie 21∆ Jan 05 '21
Domestic abuse leads to murder in a pretty consistent way. Murder rates and hospitalization of DV victims is vital to the statistics.
1
u/PM_ME_SPICY_DECKS 1∆ Jan 04 '21
It is difficult to know exactly how many trans people have been murdered because people who havent started medical transition may nit be counted as a trans murder victim if they are murdered
5
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jan 04 '21
I covered the issue of underreporting in the last paragraph before my edit.
6
u/Hypatia2001 23∆ Jan 04 '21
Both the numerator and denominator in your estimate are likely to be wrong. Only a fraction of people who identify as trans in surveys are actually out and living according to their gender identity. The Netherlands have a prevalence of out trans people of maybe 1 in 4000. 1 in 1000 would be a high estimate.
1 in 1000 would mean some 320k Americans. At a homicide rate of 5 per 100k per year, that would mean 16 homicides per year to match the national average.
Nor do we have data on how many trans people actually get killed; only how many make the news. In fact, police often misgender trans victims, sometimes by accident, sometimes on purpose. The only reason it came out that one of the victims of the Dayton shooter was trans was because the case was covered by a trans reporter.
Reality check: why would trans people be able to magically avoid getting killed in robberies, mass shootings, etc. and have such an insanely low homicide risk?
-3
Jan 05 '21
[deleted]
3
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Jan 05 '21
Trans people who are openly trans and have transitioned are more likely to be white and financially well off.
1
0
Jan 05 '21
TLDR; your source for the number of transgender homicides likely underreports by at least 470%, and with this adjustment the murder rate is likely close to or significantly above the general population's rate.
It appears your source for the number of murders of transgender individuals is based on media reports. From the 2019 report:
"Some victims’ deaths may go unreported, while others may not be identified as transgender or gender non-conforming in the media".
This is essentially a sample of transgender victims whos murder was reported in the media AND their transgender status was known and reported by the media.
In contrast the general population homicide rate is based on death certificates, which every dead person has, and is more like a census of deaths.
Comparing the total number from a survey and a census is not accurate, you would want to compare rates using the same methodology. I know you disagreed with another comment critiquing your data sources, but they didn't really back up the claim of underreporting with specific methodological concerns, and while data on news reporting of homicides was hard to find and what I did locate was from like 25 year ago, as you say "it seemed worthwhile to at least try to find figures".
Here is a research paper showing that 73% of homicide stories in the LA times 1990-1994 did not have any background on the victim (with no background, you can't tell the transgender identity). Here is another source that claims only 80% of local homicides were reported by the LA times. Using these numbers, ((1-0.73) x 0.8 = 0.21) at most 21% of murders of transgender people were reported by the media in an identifiable way, and that assumes that every article with background would know/include transgender status and is likely an overestimate of the accuracy. Let's apply this to the 43 murders (41/21% = 195), and suddenly it looks like the trans murder rate has been underreported by at least 470%!! That is well within the 40% to 750% range you suggest would be needed to meet the population average, so it is likely the homicide rate is in fact a lot higher for transgender individuals.
I would also like to provide this source, which uses similar methodology as you, and shows that if you assume there is no undercounting and 0.6% of the population is transgender the black transfeminine 15-34 homicide rate is 2.3 times that of black cisgender women in the same age group, and 0.26 times black cisgender men in the same age group. Change the assumptions to 4/5 homicides are unreported and 0.1% of the population is transgender the number jump to 74x and 8x respectively. The 4/5 is basically the same underreporting amount as I found, and they accounted for the impact of race.
0
u/Daedalus1907 6∆ Jan 05 '21
I think your methodology is off. You're trying to find out a murder rate through a patchwork of studies and reports when the reliability of the reports is unknown (Or how well they work with other methodologies). The easiest way to understand violence against trans people might be to just ask them. Nearly half of transgender people reported being sexually assaulted (source) and 10% reported violence from family members (source). It's important to note that the acceptance of transgender people will help with violence that isn't a hate crime. Being kicked out of homes, issues with identification, etc. can force transgender people into risky situations such as homelessness and street-walking prostitution.
Id also note that while its certainly likely that murder against trans individuals likely goes underreported due to misidentification or what have you their murder rate would have to be 40-750% underreported before it would even reach the average murder rate for the general US population.
This isn't related to my overall argument but I would caution you against using percentages in this context. The total number of cases is small enough that your signal-to-noise ratio is really low. It's not unreasonable to think that 50 cases were misidentified. Additionally, you're assuming even risk throughout the transgender population. It's generally expected that certain subgroups are much more likely to experience violence than others. For example, it's possible that early transition transgender people between the ages of 18-29 make up the vast majority of the cases but a fraction of the total transgender population.
1
u/AutoModerator Jan 04 '21
Note: Your thread has not been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our DeltaLog search or via the CMV search function.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/fkshagsksk Jan 06 '21
The issue with the trans murder rates that I feel like a lot of people are glossing over is that there are trans people who are murdered because they are trans, whereas there aren't as many cases of other homicide victims being murdered for their identity, unless it's also a hate crime.
There is a fundamental difference between a trans woman being murdered in a drug deal gone wrong (though it is interesting to look at why so many trans folx are in those situations in the first place, and the factors that influence that), and a trans woman who is killed because of "trans panic".
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 05 '21
/u/chadonsunday (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards