Thank you, but I'm sorry. That was why I asked for information on specific incidents. Geographically-limited sample resulting from self-reported, opt-in, online and mail surveys that unquestioningly accept many respondents without further verification of who the are and what their status is, and which offer the prospect of cash rewards for participation are simply not what you'd call scientifically rigorous, to say the least. Am I saying this small subset of a small subset of people from an extremely limited geographical area are all lying. No, of course not. But "recollection" by survey respondents selected by the methodology used here is notoriously unreliable.
But perhaps more to my point, if this was really happening to such an extent, then we should be reading about ACTUAL incidents frequently, shouldn't we? I know that the liberal media I enjoy provide me with trans-positive stories daily. In addition, we would expect transactivists or institutions like the Williams Institute to have stand-alone webpages devoted to getting the word out about any actual verified incidents of males assaulting other males because they were trans in their bathrooms.
If women can come up with link after link to real stories of real crimes committed against them in public facilities by non-females, then why would we not want to see - at bare minimum - that the tiny percentage of people who claim to be inconvenienced are at some specific risk for violence by having to use the sex-appropriate facilities already available to them?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Survey Method and Analysis
Washington, DC served as the site for this survey, which was targeted to
transgender and gender non-conforming people who work, live, and/or attend school in the
District. Analysis of the survey data was conducted using descriptive statistics, cross
tabulations, and where appropriate, Pearson’s chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests.
As a “hard-to-reach” population, usual sampling techniques for randomization,
such as random-digit dialing, were not feasible for this survey. This survey utilized a
convenience sampling method designed to reach as many members of the target community
as possible. The survey was open for four months beginning November 2008 and advertised
and/or distributed directly through seven community organizations, one online community,
and two local listserves, all of which serve the LGBT community in Washington, DC.
Advertisements for the survey encouraged respondents to forward news of the survey on to
others they think are part of the target respondent group. The survey was offered online, in
print, and via one-on-one interview in order to be as accessible as possible for people
without internet access or low literacy. An incentive to participate was included in the form
of a lottery for one of four $50 cash prizes. Follow-up interviews were conducted with six
survey participants: two young transgender men, one young and two older transgender
women, and one male crossdresser.