The Transgender Movement and Bad Stats: 2024 Edition.

What do the statistics say about the trans movement? Read this post and find out.

Dec 22, 2024

A few years ago, in the early Neolithic, when I wasn’t banned from Medium, I wrote a post called ‘The Transgender Movement and Bad Stats: A Debunking Compilation’. I had collected a vast amount of statistics and written about them in some very lengthy articles, and thought it was a good idea to collect them together into a single post.

That article is now five years out of date. Medium also banned me for being a hater, so that article is currently only available online as an archived website. I also have some delicious new statistics to compile. An updated reference guide is in order, although some sections will remain relatively the same.

If sections of this article seem familiar to you, that’s probably because they are. I will openly confess to the fact that some of this article is taken from other articles and compiled into what you are currently reading. That’s more or less the point - to write something where the numbers are presented in a digestible format. I make no apologies for this - there are only so many ways to write ‘A says XY is B%’.

You don’t have to read all of this. The sections list below contains the names of each topic - you should be able to search each heading and read it.

I’m not overly fond of writing introductions, so without further ado, let’s dive in.

Sections:

Suicide Statistics - Is 41% A Real Figure?

Prison Statistics - Are trans women more likely to be sex offenders?

Murder Stats - The Fake Epidemic

Homelessness and The Problem with Aggregation

A Quick Funding Update

Conclusion

Suicide Statistics - Is 41% a real figure?

Participate in this debate long enough, and you’ll see the repeated claims that trans people attempt or commit suicide at extremely high rates. That number you’ll often see is ‘41%’. But where does it come from?

That 41% suicide statistic comes from a report done in 2014, based on data from 2008 in the National Transgender Discrimination Survey (NTDS), from the Williams Institute, part of UCLA School of Law. Here is a link to the William’s Institute report. Of course, they debunk their own statistic on the third page of the report. How convenient for me.

“While the NTDS provides a wealth of information about the experiences of transgender and gender non-conforming people, the survey instrument and methodology posed some limitations for this study. First, the NTDS questionnaire included only a single item about suicidal behavior that asked, “Have you ever attempted suicide?” with dichotomized responses of Yes/No. Researchers have found that using this question alone in surveys can inflate the percentage of affirmative responses, since some respondents may use it to communicate self-harm behavior that is not a “suicide attempt,” such as seriously considering suicide, planning for suicide, or engaging in self-harm behavior without the intent to die (Bongiovi-Garcia et al., 2009). The National Comorbity Survey, a nationally representative survey, found that probing for intent to die through in-person interviews reduced the prevalence of lifetime suicide attempts from 4.6 percent to 2.7 percent of the adult sample (Kessler et al., 1999; Nock & Kessler, 2006). Without such probes, we were unable to determine the extent to which the 41 percent of NTDS participants who reported ever attempting suicide may overestimate the actual prevalence of attempts in the sample. In addition, the analysis was limited due to a lack of follow-up questions asked of respondents who reported having attempted suicide about such things as age and transgender/gender non-conforming status at the time of the attempt.”

If that was too long for you to read - the question was asked as a ‘yes/no’ question. This has a well-known effect of overinflating the number of people who answer in the affirmative to the question ‘Have you ever attempted suicide?’. The NTDS asked the question in this manner and thus massively overinflated the estimated suicide rate in their sample. The ‘41'%’ number is statistical noise.

Not only that, but the authors conclude that there’s no explanations available

“ Second, the survey did not directly explore mental health status and history, which have been identified as important risk factors for both attempted and completed suicide in the general population […] The lack of systematic mental health information in the NTDS data significantly limited our ability to identify the pathways to suicidal behavior among the respondents”

They don’t know why the rate is so high — so you can’t say 41% of transgender people attempt suicide because of ‘lack of acceptance’ or ‘bathroom bills or ‘Donald Trump’. Because the study didn’t ask those questions. That would be the case even if the study didn’t have even more major methodological problems anyway:

Third, since the NTDS utilized convenience sampling, it is unclear how representative the respondents are of the overall U.S. transgender/gender non-conforming adult population. Further, the survey’s focus on discrimination may have resulted in wider participation by persons who had suffered negative life experiences due to antitransgender bias.1 As the relationship between minority stress and mental health would suggest (Meyer, 2003), this may have contributed to a higher prevalence of negative outcomes, including lifetime suicide attempts, in the sample.

A convenience sample means the results are basically a cross between being indicative of a potential issue and waste of time. Essentially, the survey shows the rate of suicide attempts by those who took the survey, which means the results are only applicable to the survey-takers, rather than any broader group of people. This is a problem with all the National Center for Transgender Equality surveys even today - and they’re still treated as an authority on this subject. Total madness.

It’s like if I did a survey of all my friends on whether or not we prefer deep-dish. If I have one Irish person in my sample, and that person just loves deep-dish, I cannot then use the results of my survey to tell Newsweek that 100% of all Irish people love deep-dish. Only my friend does. Similarly, the original authors of the NTDS can say that their survey-takers had a 41% rate of attempted suicide, but they can’t apply the result to the broader demographic of whatever is considered' ‘transgender’ these days.

But unlike me, who did not run off to Newsweek to inform them that 100% of all Irish people love deep-dish, the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE), did in fact, tell anyone who would listen that ‘41% of trans people attempt suicide’. Activists, non-profits, politicians and mendacious pediatricians followed suit in telling anyone who would listen about ‘41%’, and it became completely divorced from its original context. ‘41%’ quickly took on a life of it’s own, and became an urban myth, a meme, no different from other statistical noise given life, like claims that ‘50% of lesbians beat their partners’, ‘Humans only use 10% of the brain’, ‘50% of cops are wife beaters’, the opium letter in the New England Journal of Medicine that ‘proved’ opiates ‘weren’t addictive’, and the concept of ‘excited delirium’.

All of those had morphed into adages, things widely accepted as true because ‘it was in a study’, or from being uncritically repeated in popular science outlets. They’re things that often have a grain of truth to them or affirm traditional beliefs, so they’re judged as ‘true enough.’ But they’re all falsehoods, just as much as ‘41%’ is, and all those falsehoods share a similar pattern, going from a random statistic in a poorly conducted survey or even just a case study and from there, gradually morphing into widely-accepted knowledge, even though no one really knows where it came from, nor has bothered to investigate it, because it matches with an agenda or traditionally held beliefs. Eventually, someone with a sense of inquiry looks into the statistic and finds that it’s false, but by that point it’s often done untold damage and will take decades to purge from the popular consciousness.

The suicide attempt statistic that started life as meaningless noise from a poorly conducted 2008 study with huge methodological flaws has now graduated from random apocrypha to religious dogma. That statistic, which objectively looks horrendous deprived of its original context, was used to justify a whole range of absurd propositions.

Give me absurd propositions X, Y, and Z, or it’s hateful and I’ll kill myself, trans people have a 41% suicide rate because of discrimination!’

Above is a fairly representative example of what the use of ‘41%’ turned into - completely misinformed people screaming histrionically about committing suicide because someone told a man to use the men’s room. Not only is that emotional abuse, it can only last for so long before people get sick of the absurdity. The suicide baiting rhetoric was always going to backfire, and it has done so in spectacular fashion.

Now 41% is used as a slang word for transgender suicide. The adage got repeated so often it turned into a meme, and then that meme became a threat, the demographically tailored 2024 version of ‘kys’1.

It’s also morphed from what was the rate of suicide attempts to just suicide. It’s not ‘41% of transgender-identifying people attempt suicide’, it’s ‘will commit suicide’. The reality of ‘41%’ is neither, it is ‘41% of people who took the National Transgender Discrimination Survey in 2008 answered in the affirmative to a yes/no question about attempting suicide’ which succinctly describes a number that is effectively meaningless statistical noise from a 14-year old study, something that is much less interesting.

Now that it’s essentially well, a nasty threat - yes, telling someone to kill themselves for whatever reason is generally unpleasant behavior, sorry - the power of the statistic is reversed. It’s now used like this:

‘why would I let you into women’s prisons when you are going to kill yourself anyway, degenerate?’ 41% already you fucking troon pedophile, no one cares about the opinions of people who will be dead soon

Personally, I don’t know what to make of the evolution of ‘41%’. It’s gone from being a widely held false belief used to justify all sorts of terrible things to a demand that the trans-identifying person you disagree with should go kill themselves. It’s somehow even less constructive than it was before, which is certainly an achievement, albeit a dubious one.

Yes, transgenderism is a dangerous, illiberal cult full of misogyny, racism, and homophobia, but I don’t think it’s right to sacrifice my values when criticizing them - I can do that effectively without telling people to go and kill themselves. Would you tell someone in a similar situation - like a Scientologist, who is also part of a destructive and nasty cult to go and kill themselves?

Prison Statistics - Are trans women more likely to be sex offenders?

One place where we don’t have a great deal of statistics is the prison system. However, from the statistics we do have available, we can deduce the following fact: male prisoners with a transgender identity are more likely than any other imprisoned male to be sex offenders. In fact, men with a transgender identity are more likely than any other man in the United Stats to be a sex offender, period.

To prove this, I’ve written you a bullet point list to follow along.

Let’s consider the following:

The non-profit William’s Institute estimates that that 1.4% of the U.S population is transgender.
That same William’s Institute publication estimates that there are 515,200 male to female identifying men in the U.S, which would make them 0.15% of the population.
The Department of Justice reports there are 1,230,100 persons in U.S prisons.
There are 1,142,300 men in prison. 0.69% of all men in the US are in the prison system.
There are 6,236 male-to-female identifying prisoners in the US.
Prisoners make up 0.5% of the population of men that identify as male to female.
The Sentencing Project states that 355 per 100,000 adults are imprisoned in the US.
Using the above figures from the Sentencing Project, around 745 men per 100,000 are incarcerated for any offense.
The Sentencing Project estimates that 49 out of every 100,000 women are in prison.
Based on that, a man is 15.2 times more likely to be in prison than a woman.
1,210 per 100,000 male-to-female identifying men are incarcerated - nearly twice the rate of other men.
A male-to-female identifying man is 1.6 times more likely to be incarcerated for any offense than any other sort of man, 3.41 times more likely than the general population as a whole and 24.7 times more likely than a woman.
Around 12-13% of all prisoners are in for a sexual offense. Taking the middle figure - 12.5%, and accounting for the minuscule portion of women, we get around 143,921 men in prison for sexual offenses.
Around 87 per 100,000 men are currently incarcerated for a sexual offense in the U.S.
Thanks to a Freedom of Information Act request by Keep Prisons Single Sex, we can see that in the federal prison system, 47.62% of prisoners identifying as male-to-female are sex offenders, for a total of 641.
There are 1,346 total prisoners in the federal system identifying as male-to-female.
There are 156,532 prisoners incarcerated in the federal system. 93% of them - 145,574 are men.
18,886 of those men are in federal incarceration for sex offending, which means 3.39% of all male sex offenders in the federal system identify as male to female, which is far higher than their representation in the general population.
0.924% of the federal system are male to female identifying men, disproportionate to their share of the population.
If we go by the statistics above and data from multiple states and even different countries such as Canada and the UK, which consistently show that roughly half - 40-50% of male to female identifying men are incarcerated for sex offenses:
This means that around 3,118 of male to female identifying men are incarcerated for sex offenses across the United States, simply roughly dividing them in half.2
605 per 100,000 ‘trans women' are currently serving a prison sentence for a sex offense, and thus:
A male-to-female identifying man is seven times more likely to be incarcerated right now for a sexual offense than any other biological male.
There are around 17,848 women in prison for sex offenses in the U.S, by this rough math.3
There are 168.6 million women in the U.S.
10 per 100,000 of women are currently incarcerated sex offenders.
A male-to-female identifying man is sixty times more likely to be incarcerated right now for a sexual offense than a woman.
In fact, the ratio for MTF-men:men is similar to the ratio of men:women. Male to female identifying men are the men of male sex offenders.

Whoa, that was a lot.

Even if you double the 515,200 estimate to over a million, because you think ‘515,200’ seems too small a number, it still holds true that male to female identifying men are still far more likely to be incarcerated sex offenders than other demographic. This is also probably an issue with data aggregation - there’s a world of difference between a young woman identifying as non binary and a violent autogynephilic sex offender saying he deserves a spot in a woman’s unit because of his gender identity, but both end up united under the ‘transgender umbrella'.

As for why this is, I can only speculate. Even if you don’t like my calculations or extrapolations, it’s clear here that male-to-female identifying men are more likely than any other man to be incarcerated in the federal system for sex offenses. I don’t like to point out the obvious, but to be in federal prison for sex crimes means you have done something nasty. 124.35 per 100,000 male to female identifying men are in federal prison for sex offenses, compared to 11.242 per 100,000 for males in the general population. The population of male to female identifying men in the US would have to be 5.7 million for them to be represented at the same rate as regular men.

Anything I say is only speculation, but given the fact that the majority of men who claim a transgender identity have a paraphilia called autogynephila4, and there has been a huge demographic shift in the past few years where the vast majority of transgender identifying men are now autogynephiliacs. Paraphilias tend to cluster - something anecdotally very visible when viewing the social media activity of these men, who often have long lists of fetishes and extreme pornography habits - and that paraphiliac clusters have been associated with high-risk sex offenders in Canada, and the picture becomes a lot clearer:

Autogynephilia is a paraphilia. Paraphilias tend to cluster, and paraphiliac clusters are associated with high-risk sex offenders. Ergo, male-to female identifying men, who are often motivated by autogynephilia, are far more likely than the general population to be sex offenders.

I’m not saying every man with autogynephilia is a sex offender, nor every paraphiliac. However, a man who expresses his autogynephilia in public - for example, cross-dressing, or demanding to be called a female name and have female pronouns used to discuss him both of which he fetishizes and causes him to become sexually aroused - is at the bare minimum, sexually harassing everyone he demands this from. He will stop at nothing to force everyone around to affirm him as ‘woman’, which is forcing people to take part in a man’s sexual fetish without their consent.

It doesn’t take a genius to see how this sort of constant boundary violation could continue to escalate into serious sexual offending. That’s my speculation as to the cause of the highly elevated rate of sex offending amongst male-to-female identifying men - again, only speculation. But it’s an educated layman’s guess, based on reading and being familiar with the relevant literature.

I must emphasize that I’m not calling all transgender identifying men sex offenders. However, as a demographic, it’s clear that they are more likely than any other demographic in the US to sexually offend, because otherwise, how would they be nearly eleven times more likely to be federally incarcerated for it? That’s what the data indicates. That’s not politically correct, but it’s true.

It also neatly disposes of the ‘female brain’ argument. If they’re really a man in a woman’s body, why do ‘trans women’ sexually offend at six to ten times the rate of a any other man, and exponentially higher than women? How come paraphilias are so common and widely acknowledged amongst ‘trans women’, yet are extremely rarely seen in women?

Many gender critical feminists will claim that ‘trans women’ have ‘male pattern criminality’. It’s a common refrain. I don’t think that’s true, based on these numbers, or half of all male prisoners would be in for sex offenses. A better term would be ‘transgender pattern criminality’, because men who have a transgender identity are even bigger danger to women than other male prisoners. In fact, going by these statistics, men who have a transgender identity are a bigger danger to women than any other type of man.

These figures are only from transgender identifying men who are in prison right now. How many of them have served their sentences? SafeHome estimates that based on analysis of sex offender registries, there are 795,000 registered sex offenders in the US, meaning that if that ‘nearly half of all transgender identifying men incarcerated are incarcerated for sex offenses’ holds true, they would make up 0.39% of the sex offender registry - a small number until you realize that that’s over twice their proportion in the general population, meaning that just based on the numbers in prison, they are at least more than twice as likely to be registered sex offenders.

And that’s just the men who are in prison, right now. How many are out and about? How many were never caught - a RAINN study shows that sexual offending is heavily underreported by victims, and there are more than enough anecdotes online to show this may well be the case - but we need more data.

You might argue ‘courts discriminate against trans women, convicting them more’. That might explain a slightly higher rate. It doesn’t explain ten times the rate. That kind of disproportionate representation suggests there’s something a lot bigger going on.

Murder Stats - The Fake Epidemic

We’re often told that there’s a transgender murder epidemic: that trans women are the most likely demographic to be murdered, and therefore the most oppressed, and so on.

I decided to verify this, and the Human Rights Campaign gave me the answers. How many homicides of American transgender people were there in 2024?

30.

That’s not a typo. In 2024, to quote the Human Rights Campaign:

“The Human Rights Campaign is both saddened and infuriated by the deaths of at least thirty transgender and gender-expansive people whose lives were tragically and inhumanely taken through violent means, including gun and intimate partner violence, in 2024.”

Gender expansive? Is that the politically correct term for fat people nowadays? What does that even mean? Come on.

Pew Research estimates that 1.6% of the U.S population is transgender or non binary, but the non-profit William’s Institute estimates that that 1.4% of the U.S population is transgender.

Now, if we take the above figure of the William’s Institute, which is that 1.4% of the population in the US is transgender, and then applying that to the US population of 334.9 million, we get a figure of 4,688,600 transgender people in the US. That’s a lot of people - more than the entire population of the Minneapolis metropolitan area.

So, working that out courtesy of Omni Calculator’s Incident Rate calculator, we get a murder rate of… drum roll please….

0.6398 per 100,000

The murder rate in Minneapolis? 5.41 homicides per 100,000.

0.6398 per 100,000 doesn’t require a day of remembrance. In fact, that might well be the lowest murder rate for any demographic on the planet. Ironically, there might well be more trans murderers than trans murdered.

Now that’s irony?

Even worldwide, the numbers are ridiculous. Statista reports that ‘more than 300 Trans People Killed in 2023.’ Their figure, worldwide, for 2023, is 320 ‘trans and gender diverse people, according to the ‘Trans Murder Monitoring Research Project’.

OK, good enough. There are an estimated 8,194,270,656 people walking around on this Earth right now. 1.4% of them is 114,719,789.184. Instead of counting the .184 of a person, we’ll remove that.

With a figure of 114,719,789 transgender people on this planet, what’s the worldwide murder rate?

0.2615 per 100,000.

It’s an epidemic!!!!!11111oneoneonewtfbwyberws9021032!!!!! omg!!!! Help!!1

Puh-lease. If you want a murder epidemic, you should move to, let’s see… uh…. Portugal, which has three times the worldwide murder rate of the ‘trans and gender-expansive’. In fact, if all the trans people worldwide were a country, they would have the second lowest murder rate in the world.

If I cut that figure by 90%, to 11.4 million people who identify as transgender walking the earth, we get a rate of 2.615 per 100,000, from a population of 11.4 million. That’s still better than Minneapolis. If I take the US figure and cut it in half, I get a rate of 1.256. If I take that US figure down to 600,000, I get an incident rate resembling Minneapolis.

In short: What murder epidemic?

Even though this statistic was debunked, including by yours truly, a long time ago, that still doesn’t stop the scaremongering. Even though only shut-ins who live on Uber Eats and Amazon Prime have a lower murder rate, apparently there’s still a murder epidemic against the transgendered, which means we must mourn all the victims on the Transgender Day of Remembrance.

But using their own numbers there just isn’t any real justifications for #Stoptransmurders or claims of a ‘murder epidemic’. I’m not magicking up evil TERF statistics to be a hater. I’m quoting from the Human Rights Campaign.

If you want to get very picky, we could take out the three trans men listed by the HRC, giving us twenty-seven people who the HRC identifies as transgender-identifying men.5 If we apply to that the William’s Institute estimate of 515,500 transgender identifying men, then we get a murder rate of 5.238 per 100,000. That’s less than the national average, reported by Statista as being 5.7 per 100,000. The rate for non trans-identifying men is around 8.5 murders per 100,000 men. So that’s still lower than the general population, and lower than other men.

Furthermore, the overall homicide rate has been increasing since 2015, but we can see that the numbers for the ‘trans murder epidemic’ aren’t really changing. When I first worked out this statistic, the HRC was reporting 27 murders in 2017, so aside from small year to year fluctuations, the numbers aren’t changing, even as general homicide rates in the US rise.

It takes thirty seconds to work this out - all you need to do now is dump the numbers into ChatGPT and ask it to calculate them. I would assume all the big organizations bleating about a ‘murder epidemic’ are as equally capable of plugging numbers into ChatGPT as I am, which means that any claim of a murder epidemic is fundamentally a product of a disingenuous disinformation campaign.

Actually that’s giving it too much credit to call it disinformation. It’s lying.

Homelessness and The Problem with Aggregation

The way statistics today are generally reported as ‘LGBTQIA+’ or my personal most hated acronym of all time, ‘SOGI’ (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) means that those statistics generally tell us nothing. For example, you could see a statement like ‘LGBTQIA+ people suffered from AIDS disproportionately in the 1980s.’ On the face of it, true. But homosexual women - that’s the L - were disproportionately less likely to suffer from AIDS than literally any other demographic, because lesbians are disproportionately less likely to catch sexually transmitted diseases. But if you don’t disaggregate the acronym, you get nonsense like that. The UN will publish studies on ‘SOGI’, international organizations will discuss ‘SOGI’, and condemn young men being thrown off roofs in the Middle East because of their ‘SOGI’, but sexual orientation and gender identity are two vastly different things and shouldn’t be lumped together - it’s forced teaming that homosexuals didn’t need, nor want, but has been done anyway, without their consent.

To illustrate the problems with this, let’s talk about homelessness.

The popular figure is that 40% of homeless youth are LGBT. I have seen this re-purposed into 40% of homeless youth are trans, or are queer, etcetera. The reality is very different — the 2012 Williams Institute survey that is the source of that information says, well, I’ll quote for you:

“The findings from this survey demonstrate that many LGBT youth are at high risk of homelessness, often as a result of family rejection and abuse. The analyses offer critical insights into the challenges that these young people face when they seek help during a very difficult time in their lives,” said Laura E. Durso, Williams Institute Public Policy Fellow and study co-author.
[…]
Among the key findings:
* 94% of respondents from agencies work with LGBT youth
* 30% of agency clients identified as gay or lesbian
* 9% identified as bisexual
* 1% identified as transgender”

Hell, the term ‘queer youth’ was in its Tumblr phase in 2012. Yet you will see this figure repeated as ‘LGBT homelessness’ and often used to illustrate ‘transgender homelessness’. Yet of that 40%, almost all of them were same sex attracted, not transgender. Those are the figures you never hear. A 2015 update from the Williams Institute shows that the trend was relatively steady. While it surveyed a smaller number of homelessness services, it found that 20% of young people were reported by providers as lesbian or gay, 7% as bisexual, and 2% as ‘questioning.’ Providers reported that 1% of the youth they served identified as ‘transgender males’ and 2% as ‘transgender females’. The numbers are minuscule in comparison to gay and bisexual youth.

But who knows what happened to that 39% of all homeless youth in 2012. Did they vanish into the ether? Is the problem still ongoing? Is it better? Worse? I don’t know, because while the National Alliance To End Homelessness can give me a lovely interactive map for all 5,000 or so ‘trans or gender non-conforming individuals’ experiencing homelessness, they have literally no results of any kind specifically about gay, lesbian or bisexual people. . There’s their point in time count from 2018, which mentions the same 2012 study I’ve discussed but otherwise only counts transgender individuals. That’s it. If I try searching for more information about LGB individuals, I am deluged with information about transgender people.

It’s not just them. Nobody has those numbers, because everyone stopped tracking it in favor of transgender people, or amalgamated everything under ‘LGBTQIA+’. I guess the problem disappeared into the ether then! Poof and it’s gone!

For reference, the 2012 study by the Williams Institute had hard numbers from the services they surveyed, which reported serving 22,209 young gay and lesbian young people, and 6,285 bisexual young people. And that’s just youth, from the 300+ service providers the William’s Institute surveyed. Are the numbers better or worse? Does anyone care about them? Apparently not.

But the homelessness statistics segue into a useful digression, an argument that needs to be made.

With that example established, herein is the problem with almost all data on the ‘LGBTQIA+ community’. That’s seven distinct demographics of people, only three of whom share any substantial overlap in any real capacity, that capacity being same-sex attraction, and that’s the LGB, and especially the L & G. When you can’t get any data that splits seven distinct demographics apart, how useful is it? How can we learn anything about how these demographics are doing? Do they need certain services? Are they disproportionately at risk of something? Are they doing really well? Are they a model minority? Are they more likely to be thrown out of home and become homeless as young people?

Who knows, because now all the data is a soggy - sorry, SOGI, quagmire of bad data and focus entirely on the ‘T’. Who cares about the homosexuals?

It’s like if you decided to create a giant category in the census called ‘People of Color/POC’, and then included anyone who wasn’t white. Those statistics would be a complete waste of time, because you’ve aggregated who knows how many people on the basis that they have a skin color that’s at least a III on the Fitzpatrick scale. What does a black guy in California have to do with a Vietnamese woman in Vermont? POC, apparently.

It’s easy enough to see the flaws in that - so why is a gay man and a man who claims they are ‘a woman on the inside’ not two different things with nothing to do with each other? How does a woman claiming to be a ‘gay trans man’ who desires heterosexual sex with gay men have anything do with a lesbian? They don’t. They have nothing to do with homosexuals whatsoever.

Why does that simple, obvious statement, provoke such a vicious response? It summons appalling vitriol and claims that ‘gay people owe their rights to trans so you owe us our rights’ (false), or ‘No LGB without the T’. If you want to see homophobia, go to the LGB Alliance X account and look at the replies. All they’ve done is say that the LGB has nothing do with the T, which is true.

Hence, the issue with ‘LGBTQIA+’. But there’s an even bigger problem than simply not disaggregating the different demographics. We never ever get data disaggregated by sex.

Now that’s really important. A straight man calling himself a ‘lesbian’ is often included as a lesbian. A straight woman calling herself a ‘gay man’ is included as a gay man. Boy, I can’t wait to see ‘lesbian’ sex offender statistics go through the roof, or rates of pregnancy amongst ‘gay men’ increase by infinity per cent because the data isn’t disaggregated by sex. These demographics have nothing to do with each other. It’s only this way because there’s people in the majority group of heterosexuals that think they should be able to identify into being homosexual for fetishistic reasons, and thereby ruin any attempt at collecting statistics about same-sex attracted individuals.

It means all the data we have for ‘lesbians and gays’ that is not disaggregated by sex is completely and utterly useless, because all that data includes heterosexual people.

A Quick Funding Update

The money side of the trans movement continues to grow. Based on a report by Funders for LGBTI Issues, in 2022:

$258.1 million was awarded specifically for LGBTI issues. $95 million was awarded in 2011, the year before transgender issues started to become mainstream.
The biggest donors were Gilead Sciences and the Ford Foundation.
Of the demographically ringfenced funding, 19%, or $48.1 million went on ‘TGCNCBi’, or transgender issues.6 They were the only demographic to receive an increase in funding.
Gay men/Queer Men/MSM received 2%, or $4.9 million dollars of funding. In 2017, they received $8.2 million in ring-fenced funding.
Lesbians/Queer Women7, got less than 1%, at a behemoth $632,640 in funding. In 2017, lesbian women received $2.3million in ring-fenced donations.
‘General LGBTQ’ received $203,345,758 in funding.
The organizations that made the most numbers of grants where the Horizons Foundation and the ‘Trans Justice Funding Project’, a non charitable astroturf trust funded in part by the Tides Foundation. These two groups made more grants than every other group put together.
The top grantees are The Trevor Project, which received $8.1million dollars, the Transgender Law Center, which received $7.3m, and the National Women’s Law Center, which features front and center on it’s website ‘protecting gender affirming care in the military’, which received $6.8m.
Out of the top twenty grantees, five specifically mention trans only, and the rest explicitly center trans issues, not gay ones.
There are 11 results for lesbian in the report, most of them mentions of trans organizations National Center for Lesbian Rights and Astraea Lesbian Justice.
There are 8 mentions of ‘gay’.
There are 60 for trans.

Funding for gay and lesbian issues continues to decline, while trans issues continue to overtake the movement. Note that’s just ringfenced funding - it’s easier to contend that the real numbers are probably much higher, because almost every ‘LGBTQIA+’ organization these days prioritizes the ‘TQIA+’ at the expense of all the other letters.

Of the $258.1 million, 35% went towards advocacy, 19% went towards ‘direct service and health care’, with 13% each going to ‘capacity building’ and ‘culture and media’. The vast majority of homosexual people in the US are seeing very few, if any dimes, in terms of philanthropic support, and this is a trend that has only continued to worsen since 2016. If these trends continue, gay men and lesbians will be receiving zero ringfenced funding from philanthropic groups within the next ten years.

Given that the organizations that are supposed to represent them have shifted entirely to prioritize trans issues, it means that the civil society infrastructure built to support gays and lesbians has either been colonized or completely collapsed in the span of a decade. There is no more gay and lesbian civil society. It’s gone. It’s been colonized and twisted until what was gay and lesbian civil society actively persecutes gays and lesbians. We live in clown world.

I’m only hoping that Funders for LGBTI issues didn’t track any grants to groups like LGB Alliance USA or Gays Against Groomers. Because those groups and groups like them are the only gay and lesbian civil society groups left.

Conclusion:

When I wrote the first edition of this, I said things like ‘bad stats help nobody’. That’s more or less still my opinion. Bad statistical data still helps nobody. It’s only useful for people who want to be completely disingenuous.

I also said the trans movement had a data problem. It still has a data problem, in that many of the statistics it argues to prove it’s point are garbage, or based on convenience samples, or from aggregating data in from unrelated and actually oppressed minority groups like gays and lesbians. That’s not even going into the medical side of things, which is such an unmitigated disaster that Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy is refusing to release the final results of her TransYouth study.8

It just also has another, bigger data problem now. Growing amounts of it, from the Cass Report to prison statistics undermine many of their arguments in fairly brutal fashion. In fact, it exposes many of the arguments of the trans rights movements as disingenuous or lies - though of course, this is a movement based on people saying they are actually the opposite sex, so it was built on fraud to start with.

However, I didn’t expect to be able to extrapolate that male-to-female identifying men, for instance, are far more likely to be incarcerated for sex offenses than other men, but that’s what the data shows.

There’s also depressing things. I didn’t think I would find that homeless LGB youth appear to be have been forgotten about. There’s no fancy interactive map for them, only disappearing into the aggregate of ‘LGTBQIA+ youth’, their unique experiences and needs completely ignored. I didn’t expect ring-fenced lesbian funding to have dropped into the mid six-figures. Erasure of homosexuals is happening before our very eyes.

I said it then and I’ll say it now: none of the things the trans movement claims are backed by hard data. It’s convenience samples and unpublished research all the way down. When there is hard data, it contradicts statements like ‘puberty blockers are safe’. You can massage a convenience sample survey to say whatever you want, but you can’t really argue with prison statistics, the census, British governmental inquiries, or a random sample.

Unfortunately, because of the politics of many academic publications, and the behavior of the academy on this topic, as well as government organizations who are reluctant to disclose certain pieces of information, it’s been really difficult to get good data. When there is data, there’s no disaggregation by sex and/or by sexual orientation, so it’s worthless.

What I would like to see is more data on prisons and the sex offenders registry. The data we do have is indicative of a very inconvenient fact for the trans movement. ‘Trans women are more likely to be sex offenders’ being a true statement is a Defcon 1 moment. If we could get state-by-state prison data, or even data from other similar Western nations outside the UK and Canada, which I am guessing is going to show a similar rate of sexual offending and incarceration, then a lot of people are going to have a lot of questions to answer, like ‘why did you argue that the male sex offender should go into a women’s prison, again?’.

Remember, the Vice-President just lost an election on the basis she would be giving free ‘gender-affirming surgeries’ to these men, nearly half of whom are sex offenders. ‘Harris is for they/them, Trump is for you’ just won an election. Will ‘Democrats want this sex offender in your daughter’s bathroom’ win the election for the worst of all worlds Vance/Trump Jr. ticket in 2028? This is a huge culture issue, and it’s not going away.

Hence the need for better data. Clearer data. The Cass Report is a great start, but we need more. Even if it shows a deeply unpleasant reality.

Pseudonymous Reporting

Discussion about this post