Transgender Homicides in Britain, 2000–2025: Victims and Perpetrators

[IwantToRetire]

Transgender people are often portrayed as especially vulnerable to violence, but estimating victimization rates is difficult because reliable population denominators are lacking. This paper proposes an alternative approach, comparing the ratio of transgender homicide victims to perpetrators. It analyzes all homicides involving transgender people in Britain from 2000 to 2025. Victims were outnumbered by perpetrators, even excluding those who declared a transgender identity after imprisonment. Almost all cases involved natal males identifying as transwomen. The victim–perpetrator ratio among these individuals closely resembles that for males overall and differs markedly from that for females. BBC News published more than four times as many articles on transgender victims as on perpetrators, contributing to perceptions of exceptional vulnerability.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6182901

I couldn't find a link to this on any other threads. Only recently published, well updated in April. Thought as this is a question that often gets asked would post the link to it.

Hmm, I note that this paper has not been peer-reviewed.

It has only just been released. It is a new area of study and so one can hardly expect much in the way of " peer review". In order to pass judgment one would need to have conducted a similar study oneself - using the same rigorous methodology.

In order to pass judgment one would need to nave conducted a similar study oneself - using the same rigorous methodology.

Um no, that's not the way peer review works. You don't have to have conducted a similar study yourself in order to produce a rigorous review of someone else's work.

The two authors of this piece both have a strong anti-trans bias and so they have produced a piece of anti-trans propaganda. No surprise.

If they do manage to get their article published by a proper journal, I would give it more credence.

It is posted here with some other relevant links

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5445880-statistics-poll-evidence-archive-thread?reply=151994114&utm_campaign=reply&utm_medium=share

and it was posted here on this thread

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5523684-article-in-the-critic-questioning-validity-of-claims-of-trans-people-being-at-risk-of-murder-due-to-transphobia?reply=152034824

There really needs to be an indexing system on or for FWR as it is really hard to find relevent info quickly.

eg this paper ie when searching on title it didn't show up.

Although having the title as a FWR thread title gives it more publicity.

How do you peer review comparing table of court reports as published in the media?

If they do manage to get their article published by a proper journal, I would give it more credence.

Would you really, why do I doubt that? possible because you've already passed judgement on it The two authors of this piece both have a strong anti-trans bias and so they have produced a piece of anti-trans propaganda.

Well its easier to say and do that than search the media themselves to show the comparitive tables are made up information.

I am interested in what should be disproved here.

the information has been collated from easy to track sources. Surely the thing is if you wish to dispute the key finding, you can recreate the list if the information is incorrect, you point out the errors. The authors will then modify the paper.

Declaring it must be incorrect because you think the authors are biased is a weak argument. Surely, play the argument not the people is relevant here.

If someone cannot argue the findings, that is a sign that people are trying to denounce the findings on a basis other than accuracy of recording the conviction records.

This is not the sort of paper that needs to be peer reviewed.

The core data (UK homicide stats on trans victims v perpetrators since 2000) appears to be straightforward counting from public sources (police, news, coroners). This kind of descriptive statistical work is less prone to complex methodological errors than, say, clinical trials or econometric models.

Biggs is also a highly respected academic with a track record in this area. He does not produce 'anti trans propaganda', whatever that is supposed to mean.

It is a very easy paper to discredit so I look forward to the figures being corrected by those who declare it to new peer reviewing.

The start is to go through and show the error in the numbers. Biggs and North have not tried to hide anything. To discredit it, I would expect to see: numbers corrected for sex category for victims and murderers, and the statistics for the BBC reporting corrected.

Even if the stats in the article are accurate, the real question is, so what? What does it prove to say that more trans people in Britain have murdered than have been murdered?

You could say that more Christians have murdered than have been murdered. Does that mean Christianity is de facto bad?

The article sets out from a place of wanting to discredit trans people. It's not science, it's polemic.

Ace North is a good guy, whose stance on environmental issues is admirable, but when it comes to the trans question, he hasn't weighed in as a scientist. In order to contest transinclusivity, he stuck quotations up in his biology department from people like CS Lewis and GK Chesterton. These aren't biologists; they're literary critics. The one biologist he cited was Richard Dawkins, a well-known polemicist. Ace's area of specialisation is mosquitoes and malaria, which has nothing to do with trans studies.

What we have here are two privileged male Oxford scholars who are using their institutional affiliation to persecute trans people. It's a shame.

https://www.acenorth.net/Quotes_compilation.pdf

Here is where I'm looking and not seeing a lot of, ahem, biology.

Even if the stats in the article are accurate, the real question is, so what? What does it prove to say that more trans people in Britain have murdered than have been murdered?

It might point to the fact that the 'trans' persecution complex is based on a load of cobblers.

The ad hominem attack on the authors doesn't disprove what they say, put up or shut up, facts and evidence are good, try some.

You could say that more Christians have murdered than have been murdered. Does that mean Christianity is de facto bad?

The study is not claiming that transgenderism is bad. It’s refuting the narrative that transgender people are more likely to be victims than perpetrators.

Are you really an Oxford academic?

If Christian’s were claiming to be most vulnerable and marginalised in society, questions would legitimately be asked.

As this paper is highlighting. It is the claim of being most vulnerable to being killed as per supportive communications throughout the year. It is the claim being used to support access to the provisions for female people that they as male people should not be included in, as per safeguarding principles, that some people and organisations ignore.

I'm not making an ad hominem attack on Ace North. We have friends in common and I think he's a decent person, just misled. I'm pointing out that he is appealing to his biology credentials to attack trans people, but not using any biological evidence to support his anti-trans stance. Instead he's citing famous scientists like ... Ricky Gervais. Which seems rather telling.

As evidence of persecution of trans people, one might cite the innumerable MN threads that seek to discredit trans people. Like this one.

Still not seeing any correction of the data in the paper.

Just ad hom attacks on people with a different perspective.

Biology isn’t relevant to this study though.

This is a statistical analysis of information.

Murders OF trans people reported in the media.
Murders BY trans people reported in the media.
AND
Murders OF trans people in court statistics
Murders BY trans people in court statistics.

No biology is needed to compare this information

All the study does is contrast the representation and visibility of trans victims in the press with that of trans perpetrators.

The victims are highly visible as opposed to the perpetrators who seem of less interest.

How is any of this an attack on trans identifying people? It is simply presenting publicly available statistics. Surely this should reassure trans identifying people that their risk of being killed is very low, and inform them about how to reduce it further - avoid violent partners, sex work and alcohol and substance misuse.

It is particularly reassuring for transmen who have very low rates of victimisation. Or is it hateful to point out that transmen have very low rates of being victims of or committing homicide?

If you believe the statistics shown are incorrect then you should contact the authors & publishers.

“Surely this should reassure trans identifying people that their risk of being killed is very low, and inform them about how to reduce it further - avoid violent partners, sex work and alcohol and substance misuse.”

Well, it is a good indicator of risk factors for that group. And it does show that it is not quite as some campaign groups have led them
to believe. But, this doesn’t seem to be welcome news.

If you believe the statistics shown are incorrect then you should contact the authors & publishers.

There is no publisher, because the piece is not peer-reviewed. It's on a website where people can 'publish' whatever they want. That's my point.

OF may or may not be an academic at one of the two universities in the city of Oxford, but not all academics have even the faintest scintilla of sense; like all other classes of people, they vary.

I know this because I was brought up in a professor's household and have associated with academics all my life, and some of them (Stash Andreski and Frank Kermode spring to mind as examples) had precious little sense in many respects, in spite of being notable scholars. So even if "Oxford" means "University of Oxford" (or possibly Oxford Brookes University) rather than the city, I am singularly unimpressed by any claim that being an academic in some way fits someone as an expert in anything other than their academic field – if indeed the individual is an expert in their field as opposed to merely a place-holder.

Maybe they could turn next their attention to male employees in leading universities who involve their students and peers in their inappropriate sexual fetishes in the workplace? Perhaps identifying the type of peers who support them rather than adopting a mature and responsible adult role commensurate with being employed in a university?

That might be informative in identifying where staff safeguarding training needs directing and perhaps improving? Just a thought.