Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- debunking-swedish-study [2025/12/25 14:37] – created valah
+++ debunking-swedish-study [2025/12/25 14:42] (current) – valah
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-====== The "Trans Women Offend Like Men" Myth: Prison Data Manipulation ======
+====== The Swedish Study Myth: Debunking Dhejne et al. (2011) Misrepresentations ======
-===== The Transmisic Claims =====
+===== The Claim =====
-**Claim 1**: "The data seems to say that trans women offend in an identical way to men."
+"A Swedish study proves trans women retain male patterns of criminality and violence."
-**Claim 2**: "Trans women are convicted of sexual offenses at rates of about 1,177 per million—higher than men's 490 per million."
+This study has been weaponized in debates about:
+  * Bathroom access
+  * Prison placement
+  * Medical transition
+  * Sports participation
+  * Basically any anti-trans policy argument
-Both claims cite the same UK Ministry of Justice prison data. Both are statistical manipulation.
+Let's look at what the study actually says.
-===== What the Prison Data Actually Shows =====
+===== What the Study Actually Examined =====
-^ Population ^ Total ^ Sex Offenders ^ Percentage ^
+**Full citation**: Dhejne C, Lichtenstein P, Boman M, Johansson ALV, Långström N, Landén M (2011) "Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden"
-| Trans women prisoners | 129 | 76 | 58.9% |
-| Cisgender men prisoners | 78,781 | 13,234 | 16.8% |
-| Cisgender women prisoners | 3,812 | 125 | 3.3% |
-===== The Sleight of Hand: Four Tricks in One =====
+**The actual study**:
+  * Followed **324 individuals** in Sweden who underwent **full surgical transition**
+  * Covered the period **1973-2003** (30 years)
+  * Compared them to matched controls of their birth sex
+  * Looked at health outcomes, mortality, suicide attempts, and crime
-==== Trick #1: Comparing Percentages of Wildly Different Groups ====
+**Primary purpose**: To assess whether medical transition helps patients and what support they might need post-transition.
-You're comparing **76 people** to **13,234 people** using percentages. This hides the scale.
+**Critical point**: This studied people who completed surgical and hormonal transition - a **much smaller and more specific group** than "transgender people" generally.
-**The Classroom Analogy**
+===== What the Study Actually Found =====
-  * Classroom A: 129 students, 76 like chocolate = 58.9%
+The researchers divided the cohort into two time periods:
-  * Classroom B: 78,781 students, 13,234 like chocolate = 16.8%
-Does Classroom A "like chocolate more"? No. Classroom B has **174 times more chocolate lovers**—it just looks smaller as a percentage because the classroom is massive.
+==== Cohort 1: 1973-1988 ====
-==== Trick #2: Ignoring Who Gets Counted ====
+**Finding**: Trans people in this period were more likely to have criminal convictions than their matched birth-sex controls.
-Here's what they don't tell you about that "129 trans prisoners" number:
+From the study:
+> "Male-to-females... retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime."
-**The MoJ only counts trans prisoners who:**
+**Context**: This cohort received **inadequate mental health provision** during their transition.
-  * Have had a "case conference" (typically for sentences over 1 year)
-  * Have disclosed their trans status
-  * Don't have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC)
-From the MoJ itself:
+==== Cohort 2: 1989-2003 ====
-> "Prisoners serving long sentences are more likely to be managed as a transgender prisoner than those on shorter sentences."
+**Finding**: Trans people in this period showed **no statistically significant difference** in criminal convictions compared to their matched birth-sex controls.
-**Why this matters**: Sexual offenses carry longer sentences. So you're only counting the subset of trans prisoners most likely to be sex offenders, then treating that as representative of all trans people.
+**Context**: This cohort received **adequate mental health provision** during their transition.
-**From the BBC article**:
+===== The Key Numbers =====
-> "Trans prisoners on shorter sentences—who won't be in the survey—are less likely to be sex offenders."
+The study found male-to-female transitioners in the **early cohort** were:
+  * **Over 6 times** more likely to be convicted of an offense than female comparators
+  * **18 times** more likely to be convicted of a violent offense than female comparators
+  * **No statistically significant difference** from natal males
-This is **selection bias**. It's like surveying people at a gym and concluding "most people exercise regularly."
+But remember:
+  * This was the **1973-1988 cohort**
+  * The **1989-2003 cohort showed no such pattern**
+  * We're talking about **324 surgically transitioned people** in Sweden over 30 years
-==== Trick #3: The Completely Fabricated "1,177 per Million" ====
+===== How the Study Gets Misused =====
-This number **appears in no source document**. Let me show you how it was likely manufactured:
+**Common misrepresentations**:
-They took: 76 ÷ 129 = 58.9%
+  - **Cherry-picking**: Only citing the 1973-1988 cohort, ignoring the later one
+  - **Overgeneralization**: Applying findings about surgically transitioned people to all trans people
+  - **Temporal misapplication**: Using 1970s-1980s data for 2020s policy
+  - **Geographic misapplication**: Using Swedish healthcare system data for UK/US policy
+  - **Context stripping**: Ignoring that it was about post-surgical health outcomes, not public safety
-Then multiplied by... something? The number is made up.
+**What the study CANNOT tell you**:
+  * ❌ Whether trans women are dangerous in public spaces
+  * ❌ Whether bathroom policies increase assault risk
+  * ❌ Whether self-identified (non-surgical) trans people pose risks
+  * ❌ Anything about modern trans populations
+  * ❌ Anything about trans people who aren't in Sweden
-**The actual calculation** (if you wanted to do per-capita, which still has problems):
+===== The Author's Corrections =====
-  * UK trans population: ~48,000-262,000 (estimates vary)
+Lead researcher **Cecilia Dhejne** has repeatedly clarified how her study is being misrepresented.
-  * Trans women sex offenders in prison: 76
-  * Rate: 76 ÷ 48,000 × 1,000,000 = **1,583 per million**
-Wait, that's even higher! Except it's **still wrong** because:
+**From a 2015 interview**:
-  * That 76 only counts a snapshot of who's in prison right now
-  * It excludes those with GRCs
-  * It's subject to the selection bias above
-  * **Prison composition ≠ offense rates**
-==== Trick #4: Misusing the Swedish Study ====
+> "The individual who is making claims about trans criminality, specifically rape likelihood, is **misrepresenting the study findings**."
-When the prison data tricks fail, they pivot to citing a 2011 Swedish study (Dhejne et al.) claiming it shows trans women have "male patterns of criminality."
+**On the later cohort**:
-**What the study actually examined:**
+> "If one divides the cohort into two groups, 1973 to 1988 and 1989 to 2003, one observes that for the latter group (1989-2003), **differences in mortality, suicide attempts, and crime disappear**."
-  * 324 people who underwent full surgical transition in Sweden
-  * Covered the period 1973-2003
-  * Compared them to matched controls of their birth sex
-  * Primary purpose: assess whether medical transition helps patients
-**The actual findings:**
-The study split into two cohorts:
-  * **1973-1988 cohort**: Trans people more likely to be convicted than their birth sex
-  * **1989-2003 cohort**: No statistical difference from their birth sex
-**The misrepresentation:**
-People claim it shows "trans women retain male patterns of offending" by:
-  * Cherry-picking the early cohort
-  * Ignoring the later cohort showed no difference
-  * Ignoring this was about surgically transitioned people only
-  * Applying 1970s-1980s Swedish data to 2025 bathroom policy
-**The author's correction:**
-Lead researcher Cecilia Dhejne has repeatedly stated:
-> "The individual who is making claims about trans criminality, specifically rape likelihood, is **misrepresenting the study findings**."
-And specifically about the later cohort:
+**Specifically on criminality patterns**:
 > "This means that for the 1989 to 2003 group, **we did not find a male pattern of criminality**."
-=== The "Gender Critical" Counter-Claim ===
+**On how it's being used**:
-Some groups like Murray Blackburn MacKenzie argue that Dhejne's clarifications are misleading because the study didn't publish separate breakdowns for MtF individuals across both time periods.
+> "The study as a whole does not say that medical transition results in trans people being violent. It says nothing about trans people posing any threat to anyone else."
-**The problems with this argument:**
+===== The Murray Blackburn MacKenzie Counter-Claim =====
-  * **Author intent is clear**: Dhejne explicitly states the study is being misrepresented
+Murray Blackburn MacKenzie (MBM), a "gender critical" policy analysis group, argues that Dhejne's clarifications are misleading.
-  * **Absence of evidence ≠ evidence**: Not publishing a specific table doesn't mean you can infer the opposite
-  * **Technical pedantry ignores context**: The author knows what her data shows
-  * **Motivated reasoning**: MBM is a "gender critical" advocacy group with an agenda
-**But here's the bigger point**: Even if we accepted MBM's interpretation, it still doesn't matter because:
+==== Their Argument ====
-  * Study of 324 surgically transitioned people ≠ all trans people
+MBM claims:
-  * 1973-2003 Swedish data ≠ 2025 UK/US policy
-  * Crime statistics ≠ bathroom safety
-  * Population-level data ≠ individual risk assessment
-**The study cannot support the claims being made about modern policy, regardless of whose interpretation you accept.**
+> "The statement is only true in the trivial sense that patterns of criminality were simply not examined separately by sex for each period and so no such finding could be made."
-===== Why Prison Data Can't Tell You Crime Rates =====
+They argue:
+  * The published paper didn't break down criminality by sex AND time period simultaneously
+  * Dhejne's statement about the 1989-2003 cohort refers to ALL trans people combined (MtF + FtM)
+  * Therefore, we can't conclude that MtF specifically showed no male pattern in the later period
-**What prison data shows**: Of the prisoners we have right now, here's the breakdown.
+MBM concludes:
-**What it doesn't show**: How likely people are to commit crimes.
+> "In the absence of any new peer-reviewed publication... the original published results remain the best available large scale quantitative comparative source."
-**Why? Because you need:**
+==== Why MBM's Objections Are Weak ====
-  * Total population size (not just prisoners)
+**1. Author Intent is Crystal Clear**
-  * Reporting rates
-  * Conviction rates
-  * Sentencing patterns
-  * Who's still in prison vs. who's been released
-**The absurd example**: "75% of maximum security prisoners are violent offenders, therefore 75% of people are violent."
+Dhejne isn't being ambiguous. She explicitly states:
+  * The study is being **misrepresented**
+  * The later cohort showed **no male pattern of criminality**
+  * The findings are being **misapplied**
-Obviously wrong—but that's the exact error being made.
+**2. Technical Pedantry vs. Substance**
-===== The Per-Capita Problem =====
+MBM's argument essentially says: "The author didn't publish a specific table breaking it down exactly this way, so we'll assume the opposite of what she says."
-When population sizes differ by **600+ times**, per-capita rates become meaningless.
+This is backwards logic. The absence of a hyper-specific table doesn't override the author's clear statements about what the data shows.
-**Watch what happens**:
+**3. Motivated Reasoning**
-^ Group ^ Convictions ^ Population ^ Rate per 10,000 ^
+MBM is not a neutral academic source. They are a "gender critical" advocacy group with a vested interest in keeping this study weaponized against trans people.
-| Trans women | 76 | 48,000 | 15.83 |
-| Trans women (+6 more) | 82 | 48,000 | 17.08 |
-| Cisgender men | 13,234 | 29,177,200 | 4.54 |
-| Cisgender men (+6 more) | 13,240 | 29,177,200 | 4.54 |
-**Six additional cases**:
+**4. The Author Knows Her Own Data**
-  * Changes trans women rate by **7.9%**
-  * Doesn't even round cisgender men rate
-This is why per-capita fails with vastly different population sizes. Small absolute changes create huge percentage swings in the smaller group.
+Dhejne has access to the full dataset. If she says the later cohort showed no male pattern, she's basing that on the actual data, whether or not she published every possible cross-tabulation.
-===== What IS a Fair Comparison? =====
+**5. Even If MBM Were Right, It Doesn't Matter**
-Ask the right question: **"Who commits these crimes?"**
+Even accepting MBM's most generous interpretation:
+  * Still only 324 surgically transitioned people
+  * Still from 1973-2003 in Sweden
+  * Still says nothing about bathrooms, changing rooms, or public spaces
+  * Still can't be generalized to self-identified trans people
+  * Still doesn't support modern policy claims
-^ Group ^ Sex Offenders ^ Percentage of All Sex Offenders ^
+===== What Other Research Shows =====
-| Cisgender men | 13,234 | 99.43% |
-| Trans women | 76 | 0.57% |
-| **Total** | **13,310** | **100.00%** |
-**That's the reality**: 99.43% cisgender men, 0.57% trans women.
+**Modern studies on actual bathroom policies** find:
-Now put it in population context:
+  * **No increase in sexual assault** in jurisdictions with trans-inclusive bathroom policies
-  * 76 out of ~59.6 million UK population = **0.000128%**
+  * **No increase in privacy violations** in such jurisdictions
-  * Or: **1 in 784,000** people
+  * **Trans people are victims** of harassment and assault in bathrooms at higher rates
-===== The Policy Disaster =====
+**Key studies**:
+  * American Academy of Pediatrics (2019): No safety issues in schools with inclusive policies
+  * Hasenbush et al. (2019): No link between trans-inclusive policies and safety incidents
+  * UK Government data: Trans people experience hate crimes at twice the rate of general population
-If you used the manipulated statistics to guide policy, you'd:
+===== Why Context Matters =====
-  * Focus resources on 76 people
+Let's say, for argument's sake, we accepted the study's early cohort findings at face value. What would that tell us?
-  * While ignoring 13,234 people
-  * Because percentages looked scarier
-This is how over-policing of minorities happens while the majority committing crimes gets ignored.
+**What it would tell us**:
+  * In 1970s-1980s Sweden
+  * Among people who underwent full surgical transition
+  * With inadequate mental health support
+  * There were elevated crime rates
-**Note**: Per-capita doesn't show "propensity to commit crimes." It shows **propensity to be convicted**. These are very different things—but that's another discussion.
+**What it would NOT tell us**:
+  * Anything about trans people who don't have surgery
+  * Anything about modern trans populations
+  * Anything about trans people with proper healthcare
+  * Anything about specific risks in bathrooms or changing rooms
+  * Anything about trans people in other countries
+  * Anything useful for 2025 policy decisions
-===== What About Actual Conviction Rates? =====
+**The improved outcomes in the later cohort suggest**: Better healthcare and social support = better outcomes.
-Using **total convicted individuals** (not just prisoners):
+===== The Irony =====
-  * **1.27 trans people per million** have sexual offense convictions
+**If we take the study seriously**, it actually shows:
-  * **222 cisgender men per million** have sexual offense convictions
-Even this comparison has problems (reporting rates, conviction rates), but it's **far more valid** than prison composition data.
+  * ✅ Better mental health support during transition = better outcomes
+  * ✅ Conditions improved dramatically between the cohorts
-===== What Research Actually Shows =====
+  * ✅ The later cohort (1989-2003) showed no concerning patterns
+  * ✅ This supports providing good healthcare to trans people
-**Multiple peer-reviewed studies** examining bathroom policies find:
-  * **No increase in sexual assault** in jurisdictions with trans-inclusive bathroom policies
-  * **Trans people are victims** of violence at **twice the rate** of cisgender people (UK data)
-The original claim: "There are no recorded cases of a trans woman sexually assaulting a woman in a UK public toilet."
+**Yet it's being weaponized to argue**:
+  * ❌ Trans people are inherently dangerous
+  * ❌ We should restrict trans rights
+  * ❌ Medical transition doesn't help
-**Prison data doesn't refute this** because:
+The study's actual conclusion undermines the claims being made with it.
-  * Doesn't specify location of offenses
-  * Doesn't distinguish offense types
-  * Can't tell us about bathrooms specifically
 ===== Summary =====
-//"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."//
+The Dhejne et al. (2011) Swedish study:
-The claims rest on:
+**What it actually examined**:
+  * 324 surgically transitioned people in Sweden (1973-2003)
+  * Found elevated rates in early cohort (1973-1988)
+  * Found no difference in later cohort (1989-2003)
+  * Suggests better healthcare support = better outcomes
-  * **Comparing percentages of vastly different sized groups** (76 vs 13,234)
+**How it gets misused**:
-  * **Selection bias** (only counting long-sentence prisoners)
+  * Cherry-picking early cohort data
-  * **Fabricated statistics** ("1,177 per million" appears nowhere)
+  * Ignoring later cohort showing no issues
-  * **Misusing the Swedish study** (ignoring later cohort, author corrections, and context)
+  * Applying to all trans people (not just surgical patients)
-  * **Confusing prison composition with crime rates** (completely different calculations)
+  * Using 1970s-1980s data for 2020s policy
-  * **Misusing per-capita** (doesn't work with 600x population differences)
+  * Ignoring author's repeated corrections
-**The reality**:
+**The MBM objection**:
-  * 99.43% of sexual offense prisoners are cisgender men
+  * Claims author's clarifications are technically misleading
-  * 0.57% are trans women
+  * Based on absence of specific published cross-tabs
-  * That's 1 in 784,000 people in the UK
+  * From a "gender critical" advocacy group
-  * Research shows no safety concerns with trans-inclusive policies
+  * Even if valid, doesn't change the policy irrelevance
-  * The Swedish study doesn't support their claims even if misread
-When statistics are presented without proper context or with misleading comparisons between vastly different group sizes, they distort reality.
+**The bottom line**:
+  * The author says it's being misrepresented
+  * The later cohort showed no concerning patterns
+  * It can't support modern policy claims regardless
+  * Modern research shows no safety concerns with trans-inclusive policies
 ===== Sources =====
-  * Fair Play for Women submission to Parliament (2020) - Freedman, Stock, Sullivan
+  * Dhejne C, et al. (2011) "Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden" PLOS ONE
-  * BBC Reality Check: "How many transgender inmates are there?" (August 13, 2018)
+  * Dhejne interview (2015) regarding misuse of study findings
-  * Dhejne et al. (2011) "Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery"
+  * Murray Blackburn MacKenzie (2020) analysis and critique
-  * Murray Blackburn MacKenzie analysis of Dhejne study
+  * Hasenbush A, et al. (2019) "Gender Identity Nondiscrimination Laws in Public Accommodations: a Review of Evidence Regarding Safety and Privacy in Public Restrooms, Locker Rooms, and Changing Rooms" Sexuality Research and Social Policy
-  * UK Ministry of Justice FOI data (2019-2020)
+  * American Academy of Pediatrics (2019) "School Restroom and Locker Room Restrictions and Reduced School Connectedness Among Transgender and Gender-Diverse Students"
   * Stop Hate UK: Transgender hate crime statistics
-  * American Academy of Pediatrics: Bathroom policy studies
+  * Fair Play for Women submission to Parliament (2020) - includes discussion of Swedish study
-  * Springer: Safety and privacy research
 ----
-//This article aims to promote evidence-based policy discussion by clarifying common statistical manipulation. Good-faith questions about data interpretation are welcomed; weaponizing statistics to promote fear serves no one.//
+//This article examines one of the most commonly misrepresented studies in trans policy debates. Understanding what research actually says - and doesn't say - is crucial for evidence-based policy.//

Trace:

Differences

Search

Navigation

Print/export

Tools

QR Code