tomewing asked: IDK, it doesn't take much digging on that blog to realise that it's pretty venomously transphobic (along what I'd guess are fairly standard TERF lines) - so while I haven't dug into the specifics myself I'm certainly not LESS suspicious of a "debunking" which seems obviously agenda-driven. And not even in a liberal finger-waggy "using distorted figures does your cause no favours" way but in a way that barely masks a more general attack on the legitimacy of trans* experience.
I considered adding a caveat, but I think the specific post is relatively straightforward, i.e. there’s an argument there on the figures to counter, even if the conclusion is rather forceful. As for the rest of the blog, I actually read quite a few of the posts and while I definitely twigged the radical feminist part, my previous experience is that I have a hard time reading them, so I found it surprisingly thoughtful by comparison. I’m not particularly well-read in trans* issues/debates - I had to look up TERF - so I can’t judge whether or not it’s transphobic or trans-erasing (or at least that’s my Pontius Pilate internet-discourse position).
There are other sources querying the veracity of the statistic, I just chose the most obvious and concise one. That debunking is no less ‘agenda-driven’ than the original context of the statistic, which appears unsourced wherever a (valid) point about violence against trans* people is being made - and I think more than liberal finger-wagging is applicable given how emotive it appears as against the complexity of working out what it actually signifies. Insofar as I do understand the specifics, this is flat wrong:
"On average, you have a 1 in 18,989 chance of being murdered
A trans person has a 1 in 12 chance of being murdered”
Regardless of whether the second statistic is correct or not, it’s not the correct comparison to the first - if it’s a lifetime risk, then the average American has approximately a 1 in 150 risk of being murdered (i.e., out of a 100% risk of dying). That figure is also calculated as about 1 in 50 for black men. Plausible arguments are made for why the existing statistics on murder of trans* people do not support a higher risk than that, and there is no solid source for believing that they do.
On average, you have a 1 in 18,989 chance of being murdered
A trans person has a 1 in 12 chance of being murdered
The average life span of a cis person is about 75-90
The average life expectancy of a trans person is 23-30 years old
75% of people killed in anti LGBT hate crimes are poc
Think about this the next time you go crying over “cisphobia” and “reverse racism”
I’ve actually always meant to find out what the average cis/straight person’s chances of being murdered are compared to a trans person.
I knew it would be BAD, but fucking hell…
The statistics of lifetime chances, etc., make my head hurt, but this seems to be a pretty convincing rebuttal. Which I found by Googling the last time I saw this statistic here, because if something on Tumblr seems unbelievable… it probably is.
This is a very good piece, but this point - which I’ve seen made elsewhere a few times - got me wondering, are people really thinking this through to what seems to me to be a logical conclusion, that either this is a kind of meaningless point or lots of modern life might well be considered ‘anomalous blips’? Things like labour rights, mass literacy, much of women’s liberation, a broad franchise - innovations for the most part of the 20th century, or at least the ‘long century’ back to 1870 or so. Most aspects of modernity are ‘very unusual in the course of human history’ - that’s why it’s called modernity. Is there a difference, though, in how we think we about social/political and technological change in terms of inevitability, or of conscious, collective control? Are optimism and pessimism applied differently to each on the assumption that progress in one can be objectively measured and referenced, even if its ultimate effects lie in the same subjective sphere that constitutes human relations? Does it make sense to say that we have a ‘choice’ to pursue liberal democracy as much as we have of using digital media, or does each represent a change in an overarching structure that determines the superior course of action?
I guess the standing point of techno-optimism is that the capabilities engendered by technological change sooner or later, and to a greater or lesser degree of predictability of outcome, override political or social inertia. But what is perhaps less considered is the extent to which social and political factors warp technology, determine the form of our engagement with it, and produce a hybrid result (implicit, indeed, in the first sentence of the quote above). All of which is by way of saying that, although I’m not really opposed to the broad shift away from physical media, its existence purely in the period of late industrial capitalism is a pretty weak argument for its distinctiveness, and an even worse one for accepting its disappearance as an inevitability. Because if something else starts disappearing, something you really want to hold on to, there needs to be a better justification available for its continuity than just ‘it existed before the gramophone’…
3-Factor Authentication: A guy from Google cycles over to your house with an envelope containing your verification code
5-Factor Authentication: You have to fight and kill the guy from Google to get your code, which is tattooed inside his stomach.
10-Factor Authentication: Your verification code is in an ornate Chinese puzzle box, held deep inside a crypt full of traps and monsters.
100-Factor Authentication: You achieve total consciousness of reality in order to realise that there are no codes and there is no account to unlock in the first place.