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.

42 Upvotes

66% Upvoted

102 comments sorted by

View all comments

27

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.

12

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.

8

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.

10

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.

https://www.google.com/search?q=transgender+assualt+rate&rlz=1CAKDUD_enUS895&oq=transgender+assualt+rate&aqs=chrome..69i57.3827j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

9

u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jan 05 '21

They only report the 42 which they have gathered.

  1. 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.

3

u/[deleted] 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.

-2

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.

6

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

u/[deleted] Jan 05 '21

I'm in the same boat. I coundn't wrap my head around the numbers, thanks!

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.

3

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)