Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

Written evidence submitted by Dr Ruth Pearce [GRA2024]

Reform of the Gender Recognition Act:
Corrections to Oral Evidence

Dr Ruth Pearce

I am writing to highlight some inaccuracies in oral evidence presented to the Women and Equality Committee’s hearings of 9 December 2020. It is crucial that Committee members understand that some of what was said was demonstrably untrue.

With regards to the first hearing, I agreed with Professor Stephen Whittle’s substantive point regarding the long time for initial appointments at Gender Dysphoria Clinics, far in excess of the NHS’s 18 week target. However, the waiting lists haven’t been that short for at least 3 years. I attach the latest published information in Appendix A. You can see from the table that the shortest waiting list is 23 months, and the longest is 60 months – substantially worse than the 10-18 month range quoted by Prof Whittle.

However, this detail is dwarfed by the sheer number of distortions and untruths aired in the second session, many of which were based on unevidenced assertions. It is crucial to the credibility of the Committee’s report that members know the deceptions to which they have been subjected. In this document I explain some of the most egregious examples.

Criminality

In response to questions 38 and 39 Prof Freedman referenced “a well-known Swedish study” to imply that patterns of criminality are the same amongst trans women as they are amongst cis (non-trans) men. In her response to Q40 she alleged there were “Swedish studies” (plural). Additionally, Prof Stock referred to “male patterns” when talking about criminal behaviour in her answer to Q26.

I understand the “Swedish study” to be a single 2011 article published by Cecilia Dhejne and colleagues[1], in which the authors reported on mortality, suicidality, psychiatric care and conviction rates among individuals who transitioned in Sweden between 1973 and 2003. This study is widely but inaccurately cited by anti-trans groups on social media as evidence that trans women retain “male patterns” of criminality, an error repeated by Profs Freedman and Stock.

Dhejne herself rejected this interpretation explicitly in an interview with Cristan Williams of TransAdvocate in November 2015[2]. I attach the full relevant extract in Appendix B. A key point she makes is the study is “certainly not saying that we found that trans women were a rape risk” to cis women. Additionally, the study was not focused on investigating criminal behaviour, was drawn from a small cohort in one country, and only indicated a statistically significant increased risk of conviction for trans people who ‘underwent sex reassignment before 1989’:[3] a time when fewer opportunities and resources were available to trans people in Sweden, which may have resulted in increased criminalisation in a similar manner to other stigmatised groups. The authors therefore conclude that the best outcomes occur when individuals also receive long-term health and social care support in addition to any hormone therapy or surgery that they might require.

In response to Q20 Prof Sullivan referenced the Maria Maclachlan case[4], in which a trans person, Tara Wolf, was convicted of assault and ordered to pay a fine. The judge in that case noted that Wolf had been provoked but argued her reaction was disproportionate.[5] Wolf declined the option to launch a counter-case as offered by the police.

Importantly, the conviction of an individual trans person does not constitute evidence for a wider social trend. What quantitative research has shown is that trans people and especially trans women experience a disproportionate risk of experiencing violence when compared to the wider population, including sexual violence and domestic abuse.[6]

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/21023/html/

 

[AuroraSaab]

If you care to look at your own evidence you'll see that you've managed to undo yourself once more.

The data for the period reported is not for just male and female, but also for 'other' and 'unknown'. According to you we ought to see a grey stripe for those in the 'other' category, but the data shows no grey stripes in the data, or otherwise that they are too thin to see.

These are the crimes where the sex of the offender is unknown. Surely that's obvious. No reason to think these would be done by women in anything other than the usual ratio.

If the claim is being made, as has been the case throughout this thread that trans women are a danger to women, then you need the data that shows it. Presenting data that shows men are violent to other men, is not data that shows that trans women are a danger to other women.

The claim being made is yours - it's the claim that there are a subset of men, ie transwomen, to whom the normal safeguarding should not apply. There is no evidence to support this. You could just as easily claim that blind men, or Buddhist men over 80, or whatever other small specific subset of men you can find, should not have safeguarding applied to them in the way we apply it to other men. We all know that would be nonsense.

 

[monkers]

These are the crimes where the sex of the offender is unknown. Surely that's obvious. No reason to think these would be done by women in anything other than the usual ratio.

Again you are not understanding the data in the evidence you have presented. Rape offences committed by trans women would be shown by the presence of a grey strip on the data table. There isn't one.

What you have presented is a table of data that shows that trans women are not rapists. Please kindly acknowledge that truth shown in the data.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I had said at that time, that I had been unable to find national figures and that the Met figures were the most detailed. If you have national figures to show that the London area has a much different picture to the rest of the country, then I'll genuinely be pleased to see them.

It's literally right there in the UK Statista graph that I posted earlier today, and stats I've posted before when you first posted your cherry picked Met youth stats. These are overall UK stats covering 16 years, your Met stats were youth crime in one year. Trying to prove women are as violent as men in order to justify males in women's spaces and services is desperate, clutching at straws stuff.

 

[monkers]

The claim being made is yours - it's the claim that there are a subset of men, ie transwomen, to whom the normal safeguarding should not apply. There is no evidence to support this. You could just as easily claim that blind men, or Buddhist men over 80, or whatever other small specific subset of men you can find, should not have safeguarding applied to them in the way we apply it to other men. We all know that would be nonsense.

There are a number of false claims here. Again I have to mention what a bad faith actor you are.

1 I have not claimed that trans women are a subset of men.

2 I have not claimed that 'normal safeguarding' should not apply. I have frequently reminded you of what the law has to say when you pretend it says something else. When you fail to provide evidence you instead claim that women have guarantee to feel comfortable as a 'women's right' under the EqA - where no such right exists. It is not a right, it is a demand. Trans women make no such demand, as they already have a legal right. I wonder, is this a jealousy thing?

3 Safeguarding uses evidence in risk assessment. There is no evidence that trans women are anything like the grossly exaggerated risk as you like to so frequently say. A risk assessment would show that the current arrangements are both satisfactory and lawful.

Why do your posts rely on a final sentence in which you presume to know some random thought held by another, and then determine that means that all the person's thoughts are absurdities. It is your own thought process in doing so that is the absurdity.

I'm interested in truths and facts, not your misplaced presumptions of what I am thinking or arguing.

 

[AndyRM]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/67336536

In other news, Caster Semenya was interviewed this morning. I haven't heard the full thing, but what the Beeb have put on their website is interesting reading.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Again you are not understanding the data in the evidence you have presented. Rape offences committed by trans women would be shown by the presence of a grey strip on the data table. There isn't one.

What you have presented is a table of data that shows that trans women are not rapists. Please kindly acknowledge that truth shown in the data.

Police forces don't record crimes by transgender people as a separate category. Some record by birth sex, others by the arrested persons chosen gender identity. A transwoman, or transman, arrested for any offence will be recorded as either male or female on the stats. They wouldn't appear in the grey stripe of arrested stats, or any other stripe other than Male or Female.

It's important for obvious reasons that crime stats are accurate.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/hundreds-suspected-rapists-wrongly-labelled-women-suella-braverman/

 

[AndyRM]

This should also be a good watch: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/ice-hockey/67137021

 

[monkers]

It's literally right there in the UK Statista graph that I posted earlier today, and stats I've posted before when you first posted your cherry picked Met youth stats. These are overall UK stats covering 16 years, your Met stats were youth crime in one year. Trying to prove women are as violent as men in order to justify males in women's spaces and services is desperate, clutching at straws stuff.

Yes it is. Look at the colour code in the key - grey equals other. This means that the data is sorted by male, female, other and unknown.

The table of results has no grey stripe - this means that within the collected data there were no people who were other. The only interpretation is that no trans people had involvement, or were so few in number that the line was so thin as to be invisible.

 

[monkers]

Police forces don't record crimes by transgender people as a separate category. Some record by birth sex, others by the arrested persons chosen gender identity. A transwoman, or transman, arrested for any offence will be recorded as either male or female on the stats. They wouldn't appear in the grey stripe of arrested stats, or any other stripe other than Male or Female.

It's important for obvious reasons that crime stats are accurate.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/hundreds-suspected-rapists-wrongly-labelled-women-suella-braverman/

Ah, so now that the data you published to support your argument has been challenged, you've looked for the means to undermine your own evidence to avoid having egg on your face.

Why did you publish this as evidence if you believed it was wrong without saying so?

 

[monkers]

Police forces don't record crimes by transgender people as a separate category. Some record by birth sex, others by the arrested persons chosen gender identity. A transwoman, or transman, arrested for any offence will be recorded as either male or female on the stats. They wouldn't appear in the grey stripe of arrested stats, or any other stripe other than Male or Female.

It's important for obvious reasons that crime stats are accurate.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/hundreds-suspected-rapists-wrongly-labelled-women-suella-braverman/

We can agree on that (the highlighted part). Until then please desist from using data which you know to be faulty. If it's not accurate then it is no evidence of anything other than systemic failure, which is an allegation I've been making myself.

As a byline - I would not trust a word that comes out of Suella Braverman's mouth as truth. That woman is all kinds of a bigot and a liar.

 

[icowden]

Deary me. Here's a copy of you quoting me saying it.

Yes. You don't seem to understand what you wrote. You accused Aurora of cherry picking Bevan as an example. I pointed out that it was Classic33 who brought up Bevan, not Aurora. You seem more interested in attacking Aurora than joining the conversation.

 

[monkers]

Yes. You don't seem to understand what you wrote. You accused Aurora of cherry picking Bevan as an example. I pointed out that it was Classic33 who brought up Bevan, not Aurora. You seem more interested in attacking Aurora than joining the conversation.

I know exactly what I wrote. You've messed up, when in a hole, stop digging Ian.

 

[icowden]

Yes it is. Look at the colour code in the key - grey equals other. This means that the data is sorted by male, female, other and unknown.

The table of results has no grey stripe - this means that within the collected data there were no people who were other. The only interpretation is that no trans people had involvement, or were so few in number that the line was so thin as to be invisible.

I'm starting to think you are being deliberately obtuse. The graph for 2006 to 2022 is only categorised as male / female. This is not least because trans data was not recorded until about 2016. The graph for 2021/22 is male / female / other and unknown. As you point out the grey bar is tiny. This is not because trans people don't offend. This is because the graph is not a percentage, it's volume of arrests and there are many fewer "others" than male or female.

That doesn't matter of course, because the point of the graphs is to back up the claim, that men offend more than women, particularly violent crime.

 

[AuroraSaab]

There are a number of false claims here. Again I have to mention what a bad faith actor you are.

1 I have not claimed that trans women are a subset of men.

You haven't, but they are.

2 I have not claimed that 'normal safeguarding' should not apply.

If you think the subset of men who say they are women should have access to women's single sex spaces and services but other subsets of men shouldn't, then yes, you are claiming safeguarding shouldn't apply to those men in the way that it applies to the others.

I have frequently reminded you of what the law has to say when you pretend it says something else. When you fail to provide evidence you instead claim that women have guarantee to feel comfortable as a 'women's right' under the EqA - where no such right exists. It is not a right, it is a demand. Trans women make no such demand, as they already have a legal right. I wonder, is this a jealousy thing?

Please see the Equality Act well publicised clarification by the EHRC. For the umpteenth time.

3 Safeguarding uses evidence in risk assessment. There is no evidence that trans women are anything like the grossly exaggerated risk as you like to so frequently say. A risk assessment would show that the current arrangements are both satisfactory and lawful.

The risk comes from males. Plenty of evidence that men can be a risk. That's why all male born people can be excluded when it's legitimate and proportionate. It is impractical, and unnecessary, to perform risk assessments on an individual basis for things like women's changing rooms, domestic violence refuges, sports.

Transwomen are statistically at least the same risk as other males. It's you who seek for them to be treated differently to other men, whether it's regarding safety, or simply the privacy and discomfort of women.