If you google "women killed in 2015"..

[WeMustSurelyBeLearning]

Depending on where you are, the results on the first page range from all about trans women to all but 2 or 3 about trans women.

Is violence against females being erased? In the U.S. more than a thousand women were murdered in 2015. How come it is the 21 trans women who generate the outraged articles? Are women just not important enough?

It seems there are groups pumping money into ensuring that these results show up on first page of search engines. What would the purpose of this be?

Does anyone else find this troubling?

I think its just because women being murdered isn't newsworthy
Thank god for Karen Ingala Smith is all I can say. It is sad.

Is violence against females being erased?

You bet it is. Transgenderism came just in time to help patriarchy continue erasing violence against women now that there are more and more women in journalism, etc, and thus theoretically in control of information.

What would the purpose of this be?

It is possible that the transgenderists really just think they are helping trans - patriarchy functions via invisible hand a lot of the time.

Not sure the admitted, vocal woman-haters in the transcommunity have the financial means to achieve this. I also don't think they're clever enough for a conspiracy.

I think its just because women being murdered isn't newsworthy

Possibly. It is so common, they could probably have a headline about it every day if they deemed it newsworthy.

Trans is rarer and thus more newsworthy.

If you Google men murdered in 2015 the results are mainly about "people"
That also says a lot - maybe only about Google's search algorithms.

Might this be a Google thing? If you've done a lot of reading around trans subjects, it could weight searches towards trans women.
That doesn't excuse it, but maybe you are being shown what it thinks you want to see.

Yes, if goes by most linked pages containing your search terms.

Which can be very irritating for a number of words which are sometimes associated with another word making a new theme, totally irrelevant to your original search.

All search engines which have abandoned the type of advance search which let you exclude terms, do this.

It's not any form of value judgement on any of the many affected subjects. It's simply a tech limitation related to matching (based on words not their meanings).

The first three results being for transwomen (none of mine are FYI) has nothing to do with female deaths being any less important and everything to do with how Google's algorithms rank content based on the search term, the content of the websites/articles and thousands of other factors, and this doesn't prefer men/trans over women. If you make the search on Yahoo you get another set of results.

All search engines which have abandoned the type of advance search which let you exclude terms, do this.

You can exclude terms by adding "-transgender" to your search term.

Thanks purplefox !

I'm old enough that you had to go to a separate screen to exclude terms of use AND or NOT, and I somehow never found out it has become a mins sign.

I have always been very annoyed at the fact that Google makes assumptions on what I want to see.
Am rather sure they are controlling the search results in a way that profits them.

I wouldn't be surprised if the trans cases got first because they get the most traffic. Pretty sure that's one of the factors.

Yes, most-linked sites do come further up the results returned. It wouldn't make sense for it to be the other way round, would it?

There's also a whole sector of companies offering search engine optimisation services, for those who want use them.

If you make the search on Yahoo you get another set of results.

It's pretty much the same results on yahoo for me too, even in private mode.

I guess society in general just doesn't care as much (or at all) about violence against women. One of the articles is titled "A state of emergency: 17 trans women killed this year". Not a peep about over 1600 women murdered by men in one year. Which is the bigger emergency? Pretty depressing

WeMustSurely - depends, surely? A bit of googling suggests perhaps 4,800 trans women in the UK post transition (2009 figures by GIRES submitted to the Home Office) so that 17 people would represent 0.35%. 1600 is an almost unimaginably horrible figure but in strictly statistical terms it does represent a much lower proportion of the total number of adult women in the UK. Also, i don't know the reasons or circumstances of the deaths. If those murders are happening for reasons related to the victims' trans status, then I think it would be fair enough to write articles about it in those terms.

17 is in the US. There was 1 trans woman killed in the UK last year,and 126 women.

kareningalasmith.com/counting-dead-women/

Oops, must read thread with more care. Sorry and thanks for the correction.

Speaking of "the reasons or circumstances of the deaths", most female murder victims are killed by domestic partners, married or not. Most male victims are killed by someone they know only slightly, or not at all. If there is a disproportionate rate of murder of transwomen, it would be interesting to hear whether the circumstances most resembled the deaths of women or of men.

If you google 'how many women killed in 2015' you get a very different ranking.

If you google 'how many women killed in 2015' you get a very different ranking.

Yes, but still all but 3 articles on the first page are about trans women

all but 3 articles on the first page are about trans women

That's interesting, I had a completely different result; all but two of the fist page were not about trans women.

I have no idea why there should be such a discrepancy.

For me, of 10 hits on the 1st page, 3 are about transwomen.

I'm in the U.S. so maybe that explains the discrepancy. I just find the media manipulation and erasure of women very sinister and troubling.

It seems there are groups pumping money into ensuring that these results show up on first page of search engines

I just don't believe there is evidence to support this claim. But then I have never been a big supporter of conspiracy theories.

It's not 'groups pumping money'.

It'll be either

a) a site which genuinely has the links/traffic to put it at the top of search engine listings

or b) a site which has used one of the (many, not particularly expensive) search engine optimisation services. Not conspiracy stuff, but a totally normal and widespread commercial service.