In the 2022 Federal election, Katherine Deves is Scott Morrison’s ‘captain’s pick’ for Warringah, the electorate formerly represented by Tony Abbott and, currently, by independent Zali Steggall.
This week, social and mainstream media has erupted over the fact that Ms Deves is a notorious TERF – a trans-exclusionary radical feminist. This claim can be made with no fear of defamation. Ms Deves, herself, has proudly confirmed this status by wishing an interviewer a “Merry TERF-mas”.
Specifically, Ms Deves wants to ‘protect women’ by excluding transgender women from sport. Make no mistake, TERFS (who argue that transgender women aren’t ‘real’ women) are an extremist fringe group and do not represent the vast majority of feminists or, indeed, women in general. But this is not the argument I wish to make against Ms Deves.
The cruel, harmful, callous divisiveness of this candidate’s crusade against trans women should be sufficient reason for her to be disendorsed. But even for those who are not offended by her stance on transgender women, there is a very good reason to reject Ms Deves’ aspiration to represent the electorate of Warringah. In my opinion, Ms Deves has failed a crucial test of professional competence which should exclude her from the opportunity of holding any public office.
A huge part of of a politicians’ responsibility to their electorate involves reading reports from various stakeholders, critically analysing those reports, and arriving at a conclusion based on which information provides the best evidence for a particular course of action. Using these skills, we entrust our political representatives to choose a position and defend it by reporting honestly and accurately on the material which supports it. Our entire democratic system depends, in large part, to our politicians mastering these skills of comprehension, critical analysis and clear and accurate communication.
Ms Deves has recently apologised for a statement in which she suggested that 50 per cent of transgender women are sex offenders. Regardless of the context in which it was made, the statement is false.
I happily concede that this single tweet may have been part of a broader conversation with additional context – but Ms Deves had an opportunity to clarify that in her apology, and didn’t. Further, because her social media was such a sewer of transphobic excrement, Ms Deves had to close down her social media accounts to avoid scrutiny – so it’s no longer possible for me to see the entire thread. Therefore, I can only critique Ms Deves on the statement she has clearly, and unequivocally, made in this tweet.
First, Ms Deves refers to ‘males with trans identities’ when, of course, what she means is transgender women.
Second, she suggests that 50 per cent of transgender women are sex offenders, compared to 20 per cent of men. This is clearly untrue.
In Australia the rate of sexual offences in relation to the male population is about 55 in 100,000. That’s .06 per cent, not 20 per cent as stated by Ms Deves. For someone seeking a career in which statistics play a huge role, that’s an incredibly big margin of error.
The report on which Ms Deves’ allegation is based is a 2018 study commissioned by the trans-exclusionary radical feminist group, Fair Play for Women. It took a while to pin this down because Ms Deves hiked up their figure from 41 per cent to 50 per cent (what’s 9 per cent between TERFY friends?). As we shall see, in a catastrophic failure of either professional skills or personal ethics, Ms Deves completely misrepresented this discredited study.
Importantly, the Fair Play for Women report did not look at the general population but at a particular population of prison inmates in the UK – something that Ms Deves did not refer to in her tweet. To be fair, Twitter’s brevity does mean that sometimes you have to leave stuff out. But, Deves’ defamatory tweet was extremely brief – she still had an unused 134 characters which she could have used to clarify that she was talking about inmates in English and Welsh prisons, not all men or all transgender women.
Politics requires superior communication skills – even when communicating in précis. Despite being trained as a lawyer, and despite having plenty of room to clarify her statement, Ms Deves sent out a tweet which clearly implied that 50 per cent of all transgender women are sex offenders. It was, at the very least, careless and, at worse, malicious.
Ms Deves’ willingness to use the Fair Play for Women report in public discourse is cause for alarm. Political representatives act (or should act) on the best information they can accrue on any particular issue. But not all information a politician receives is good, accurate, nor even honest information. It is their job to sort the wheat from the chaff and they must have the skill-set to do this.
The questions politicians must ask of reports and submissions are the same questions academics ask:
- Who wrote this?
- What is their agenda?
- Who did the research?
- Is the methodology sound?
- Are the findings consistent with those of experts, or are they wildly out of kilter?
- If so, why?
- Is there some ideological bias here?
- Are the figures contested? If so, by whom?
- Are the figures supported by official sources?
- Is this study from a peer-reviewed, credible academic journal?
If we choose politicians who carelessly latch on to any report that appears to support their particular bias – no matter how disreputable the source or how shaky the figures – we end up with politicians of the calibre of Pauline Hanson, Stuart Robert and George Christensen. I think even Captain Scott Morrison would agree that’s a very low bar to set.
As a professional researcher I do these kinds of checks every day. Yes, it’s time consuming. But I’ve found that if you look, you’ll often find that reports which feature in public debates have already been expertly interrogated. That’s how I found that the BBC had fact-checked Fair Play for Women’s claim that 41 per cent of transgender female prisoners were sex offenders, compared with 20 per cent of male prisoners, and determined that it was, to be blunt, bullshit.
The BBC reality-check team went straight to the authority on prisons in the UK – the Ministry of Justice. The MoJ confirmed that, to the best of their knowledge, in the whole of England and Wales, there were 125 transgender prisoners (but they conceded they really don’t have accurate numbers). They could not say whether these were transgender males or females.
If the Ministry of Justice says they couldn’t do the study undertaken by Fair Play for Women because reliable data simply isn’t available, you have to seriously question the validity of the study on which Ms Deves has, inadvertently, staked her future political career.
Remember that old quote about there being “lies, damned lies, and statistics”? In my work I repeatedly find that bad actors use dodgy statistics in a strategy commonly referred to as FUD – weaponising “fear, uncertainty and distrust”.
The idea that 41 per cent of transgender women in prisons are sex offenders is confronting and scary – and it’s intended to be. But even if that figure were true (and it isn’t) let’s look at it in context.
In 2017 (the year in which the Fair Play for Women report was compiled) there were 82,773 inmates in English and Welsh prisons. That means that, according to the best estimate of the Ministry of Justice, identifiable transgender people accounted for .001 per cent of felons.
And even if it were true that 50 per cent of those people were sex offenders, they would account for a minuscule .05 per cent of the prison population.
Do the people of Warringah really deserve a politician who’s willing to weaponise “fear, uncertainty and doubt” against a minority group? This isn’t how responsible politicians behave.
But it’s not just a question of ethics. It’s a question of responsible use of public resources; and a politician’s time is a tax-payer funded resource. Constituents should not be paying for a politician to spend a disproportionate amount of time on a meaningless hobby horse when there are more important issues to be concerned about. Consider, for example, George Christensen’s passionate interest in adult entertainment bars in Manila which takes him away from his electorate for months of the year. OK, Ms Deves may not be cruising titty-bars in the Phillipines, but she has decided to devote an inordinate amount of her time to campaigning against a group of people which, in the very worst case scenario, might (but doesn’t) account for .01 per cent of prison inmates. Doesn’t that sound just a wee bit silly?
Of course, Ms Deves will claim that her primary concern is that cisgender women are unfairly disadvantaged by transgender women’s involvement in competitive sport. Research into this issue is on-going and contested, but a systemic review of the literature in 2017 concluded that:
“there is no direct or consistent research suggesting transgender female individuals (or male individuals) have an athletic advantage at any stage of their transition (e.g. cross-sex hormones, gender-confirming surgery).”
And, even if subsequent studies show that, in some cases or in particular sports, some athletes have an unfair advantage, the solution is not to ban transgender athletes, but to implement a system which takes account of abnormal physiological advantages of competitors, regardless of their gender.
Surely we need politicians who can think laterally about problems to find solutions that don’t unfairly demonise or disadvantage minorities?
Returning to Deves’ assertions about transgender women in UK prisons. As you probably suspected, neither 50 per cent, nor even 41 per cent of female transgender inmates in English and Welsh prisons are sexual offenders. In reality, the figure magicked up by Fair Play for Women is based on identifiable transgender prisoners serving long sentences for serious crimes in the UK prison system and involves a ridiculously small cohort of just 125 subjects.
The Ministry of Justice confirmed to the BBC that counting transgender inmates is not a simple task. For various reasons, transgender females serving shorter sentences are less likely to appear in official statistics (more details are included in the article).
Any study that looks at identifiable transgender female prisoners will inevitably provide an inaccurate picture, because only a portion of the population (the very worst offenders) is included in the data. The Fair Play for Women report ignores an unknown number of unidentified transgender transgressors in jail for any number of lesser crimes. The “60 out of 125” prisoners identified as sex offenders in the study may, in reality, be 60 out of 250 or 500 or 1000. The MoJ doesn’t know, so neither do the geniuses who wrote the Fair Play for Women paper.
Imagine if a politician were asked to determine whether a bridge, or a carpark, or a childcare centre was required in their electorate, but, had their own intractable view on the necessity of the infrastructure. In order to get get the result they want, the politician only canvasses information from the portion of the electorate they know will support their foregone conclusion; ignoring the rest. This would, of course, be reprehensible and dishonest behaviour. But, in looking only at the worst portion of the prison population, this is, essentially what happened in the Fair Play for Women report. The dodgy use of data in this report, and Ms Deves’ uncritical promotion of its findings, is either incompetent or malicious.
There are many reasons why the people of Warringah should be very wary about voting for Katherine Deves.
Katherine Deves is a transphobe and that should be more than enough to exclude her from membership of any self-respecting political party – let alone pre-selection as a political candidate.
In her crusade against transgender people, Ms Deves has distastefully compared herself to the Germans who stood up against Nazis.
And while 41 per cent of transgender females are absolutely not sex offenders, we know that a percentage close to this will attempt to take their own lives; largely because of the kind of propaganda bandied about by TERFS like Ms Deves. According to a 2022 study in the peer-reviewed Journal of Interpersonal Violence, between 40-56 per cent of transgender people are likely to attempt suicide. And yet, when discussing this very real concern recently, Ms Deves said:
“We hear from the other side the toll, all the harm, the devastation, we’re all going to commit suicide and blah blah.”
No politician will ever be perfect. But you would expect, at a minimum, an aspiring politician with an interest in gender issues would educate themselves about the alarming statistics relating to LGBTIQ+ suicide and self-harm. It is not unreasonable for the people of Warringah to expect that a political candidate would have sufficient human compassion not to dismiss the deaths of real people as “blah, blah, blah.”
But, even setting these glaring flaws, in perpetuating (and misquoting) the propaganda in the Fair Play for Women paper, Ms Deves has demonstrated that she lacks the critical thinking skills and discernment necessary to be an honest and effective political representative.
To be scrupulously fair, it may well be that Ms Deves (who, after all, has earned a law degree), does have the skills I have accused her of lacking, but, in her zeal to degrade transgender women, simply chose not to apply those skills. In that case, one can only view her promotion of the Fair Play for Women report as intentionally malicious and dishonest.
It’s really one or the other.
Whichever it is, the citizens of Warringah must really consider whether Katherine Deves is the calibre of politician who best represents their interests and values. I think the answer is clear.
An excellent analysis, thanks Chrys. Katherine Deves is either incompetent or, more likely malicious in her comments about LGBTIQ+ people. Either way, she is not fit to be a politician!! The fact that she is the Prime Minister’s pick shows a real error of judgment on his part as well.
By digging in, the PM shows himself also either incompetent or malicious. Are we surprised?
This is sad and cruel. PM has refused to drop her. Further and further to the bigoted right.
Thank you for this excellent piece. I’m posting a link to it on facebook in a few places in the hope that this article gets more eyeballs.
I despair sometimes of the transphobia in certain circles lately. The BBC has been promoting transphobia, it seems all the British newspapers have been flooded with transphobic content. We have the transphobic idiocy in USA from small-minded Republicans. Poland has various towns and cities declaring themselves LGBT-free zones.
At the same time I think transphobia and intolerance in general is actually decreasing. We become outraged at bad actors (and so we should), but that anger focuses attention on the bad instead of recognising the good. We do need to focus on the bad, but remain aware of the good so we don’t lose hope. Things are getting better, thanks to articles like yours.
Have to disagree with you this time Chrys. Whatever views one might have on transgender, this is a tiny component of election policies overall. There are massive issues facing Australia over the next decade. Stegall is a fake “independent” candidate, supported by the fake “independent” organisation. I believe she has not once voted with the government in her term. Honesty is hard to come by in politics,
The fact you don’t like the independent doesn’t make the Liberal candidate any more palatable or qualified, Bryan.
The timing and language of your article gave it the flavour of a political beat up, so I responded accordingly. Co-incidentally, the Courier Mail today published the result of a poll “Should Katherine Deves be dumped as a candidate for her transgender views?” Result: Yes 18%. Unsure 0%. No 82%.
Puts it in perspective?
Bryan, the Courier-Mail is hardly an unbiased source. An online poll received over 26,000 responses with only 1% in favour of Deves.
Thanks for your work Chrys.
First, I largely agree with what you have written in what I think is the most sensible analysis, both of the issue itself, i.e. transgender, and on the “captain’s pick”of Katherine Deves. I would have thought, and personally supported, David Brady would have made a far better candidate and would have been a far more mainsteam, middle of the Raod, and moderate candidate.
Secondly, the percentage and number of transgender people is so small, I would have thought there would have been a far better and more charitable and compassionate means or way of dealing with them and supporting them; and a far more constructive and positive way that would have, or could have benefited them.
Maybe we should give Katherine Deves a copy of the Dummies book “Critical Thinking Skills”.
An excellent article and I agree with the thrust of your argument, but it would help if you got your sums right. The percentages you calculated (as opposed to those quoted) are actually decimal fractions, not percentages. To correct it you need to either drop the “per cent” or move the decimal point two places to the right. The numbers are so small that it doesn’t affect your argument at all, but it’s not a good look.
Thank you. You are right, and I was wrong. I’ve fixed the error. Thank you for pointing it out.