Wow, that is incredibly high compared to the U.S. numbers I’ve seen. I wonder whether it’s simply much worse in the U.K., or the reporting is better, or what gets counted is different, or the numbers I’ve seen are just wrong, or what? Thanks for digging into this! Could you share a link to the primary source? I’m interested to see the methodology used.

However, do please note that you made the leap from “hate crimes” to “danger” without assessing the risks from non-hate crimes. In England and Wales in 2020/21, the total rate of violent crimes was 1 in 38, higher than the hate-motivated rate against trans people. (Source for number of crimes: https://www.statista.com/statistics/288256/violent-crimes-in-england-and-wales/)

Thus, even with the tragically high rate of hate crimes against trans people in the U.K., it still isn’t clear to me that being trans is the biggest danger when it comes to being victimized.

In Chicago, for instance, the number of hate crimes against black people is (supposedly) pretty low, but if you are a random black boy in the Chicago area, you have a frightfully dangerous future ahead of you. Although the danger is structural and historical more than from bigotry, that is of small consolation to those who die. But this kind of thing is a lot worse in the U.S. than the U.K..

This doesn’t mean that the level of violence against trans people is unimportant. It is very important! And it’s perfectly reasonable for trans advocates to focus on anti-trans violence. But it would not be reasonable to suggest that all other concerns about violence must be secondary.

Anyway, I wasn’t saying that anyone should be required to have sainthood status — quite the opposite, I was recommending that we not make arguments that only work if we assume that individuals who are a member of persecuted minorities are saints.