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.

We can't conclude from these data that transgender women are either notably homicidal or notably safe from homicide – in fact the data are reassuringly boringly aligned with that for other men.

About 0.5% of male victims were TW and about 0.7% of male perpetrators were TW. That's very roughly based on total UK figures for the period, and the slight difference could be insignificant.

There are more male perpetrators than victims because ~90% of killers, but only ~70% of victims, are male.

How fantastic that you have some personal connection with Ace North and you can send through appropriate academic feedback complete with corrections to information. You don’t even have to go through the bother of having to get a letter published. Just go to the source before incorrect data is published somewhere.

I believe that was in the conclusion reached.

Yet aparently, that must be hateful to conclude.

In some ways I'm not interested in going on with this side track.

But the point is that not just say self appointed commentators, or self appointed campaign groups, but politicians whose decisions impact us all, make claims that imply a disproportionate number of trans people are murdered. And reject with outrage at any suggestion that a TW could or might have been violent.

There are many other media and political myths that news papers and politicians like to fling around because of their agenda.

Surely if any one should be questioned as to "not peer reviewed" facts is the media and politicians who then justify stories they run or decisions they make based on their unsubstantiated claims.

However, rather than go on with this deliberate cul de sac, at least now if anyone want to contradict an ill informed article or politician, the 2 charts are now captured as images and so can be sent to those propogating the false trans narrative.

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

It is not discrediting trans people it is discrediting their claims that they are somehow the most oppressed and vulnerable group ever in the whole wide world ever.

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 means he publishes facts that are inconvenient to TRAs.

Like the time he publishes the fact there have only been 4 suicides in 10 years of data on children attending or waiting to attend the Tavistock showing overall numbers were low.

Or the time he pointed out the fact that the data in the census showing Newham to be the most populous “LGBT” area of the UK was false.

You know, facts = “anti-trans” 🙄

With all due respect, pointing out that an article has not been peer reviewed is not a 'cul de sac' (?). It's providing information that will enable readers to make an informed judgement about the reliability of the source.

And when one of the two academics authoring a piece has no training in the academic field in question, that is worth noting as well.

their claims that they are somehow the most oppressed and vulnerable group ever in the whole wide world ever.

Source please?

Have more Christians committed murder than been murdered?

Without the statistics on Christian crime rates, this is a meaningless comparison, it’s just deflection.

I think the statistics are not “so what?” as you hand wave them away, they are telling us something about the “most vulnerable” narrative, and the criminal behaviour patterns of trans women as compared with actual women.

Do you think it is at all likely that more biological women have committed murder than are murdered each year?

Give over 🙄

https://thecritic.co.uk/neither-marginalised-abused-nor-vulnerable/

Archive link:

https://archive.ph/BGyAR

Well, this paper supports that trans people are not being murdered in high numbers.

This should be welcomed news, no?

yes.

And the issue still is whether or not the Christians in the analogy have been said to be more vulnerable and marginalised in such a way to demand to access single sex provisions of the opposite sex for their protection.

The discussion about Christians is a distraction if those Christians have not demanded additional protections based on the claim of being murdered at higher rates than a directly relevant and significant comparator.

This paper isn’t about biology. It’s just a statistical comparison of murder victim/perpetrator rates in trans identified people, almost all males who identify as women.

You question a study that concludes that trans people are not actually at significant risk of murder for being trans whilst also seeking for sources of the claim the study refutes.

Do you therefore agree with the results of the study? Or dispute it because you actually do believe the opposing claims?

The thing that makes me wary of your username, OF, is the inconsistency of your posts.

Within 20 posts or so, you vascillate from a professed desire to "provide information that will enable readers to make an informed judgement about the reliability of the source" (why, thank you!) to the confident assertion that it's "a piece of anti-trans propaganda" and "It's not science, it's polemic" (not even your presented as your own, pre-review, informed judgement, but as an unquestionable truth!) And then share gems like "CS Lewis and GK Chesterton... aren't biologists" (excellent!) And make fairly strong ad hominem attacks about "two privileged male Oxford scholars who are using their institutional affiliation to persecute trans people" (considerably less easy to laugh at). And, now I look, a few short minutes later, above, and you're back to upholding exceedingly high academic and ethical standards in your professorial demand for a "source, please?" (duly provided! 😂)

Sat against your username and the nuance of some other posts (eg. Gail's, above), these inconsistencies (however you may try to reconcile them) and emotive claims just look rather... childish.

The irony is that with bit less hyperbole and a bit more rigour, posters here may take your observations more seriously - if only in having to work harder to refute them, which would at least come closer to converting them to your cause than simply generating eyerolls is doing.

For example...

If it's not yet been peer-reviewed, that's a relevant point, so how about engaging more with how the review process works (eg. will this inevitably follow or not, and whether it's as key given the data sources or not)? Or alternatively, giving specific quotes to support your accusations of bias to force deeper engagement with these claims.

Etc.

And when one of the two academics authoring a piece has no training in the academic field in question, that is worth noting as well.

Do you have the training required to make that determination?

You could just open the paper and read the first paragraph where there are numerous citations where the claim of being uniquely vulnerable and frequent victimhood are made.

That assumes you are truly interested in these findings, rather than just flinging random mud around in the hope no-one will look at the facts.

oh In that case we can ignore most of the WPATH “studies” and the one claiming males have no advantage in sport and the one claiming not affirming trans identity causes suicide. Awesome. Good to know.

But don’t transpeople claim they are the most vulnerable demographic and that “there is a trans genocide”. Surely you should be happy that these claims are now proved to be untrue age in fact, they are the safest demographic in the country?

That source doesn't contain the statement made above, that trans people claim to be the most oppressed and vulnerable group ever in the whole wide world ever.

That statement is pretty obviously hyperbole, made not by trans people or their allies but by someone who is anti-trans.

You're claiming that trans people are 'the safest demographic in the country'? Wow. You're going even further than Biggs and North.

I won't ask you for evidence to back that claim, because there isn't any.

The Good News according to the bible of accurate statistics. Trans people are statistically about as safe as everyone else. Yes, the occasional tragedy happens, and largely in the same circumstances and at the same rate as the rest of the population. Good News.

Did you not even glance at the Briggs, North paper?
"Violence against transgender people is often described as an epidemic. This phrasing has been used by a former U.S. President (Biden 2020), by the American Medical Association (AMA 2019), by newspapers (Lees 2018; Rojas and Swales 2019), and by LGBT organizations (Human Rights Campaign Foundation 2024; Stonewall 2020a). Murder victims are commemorated in the annual Trans Day of Remembrance, instituted in 1999 and now observed throughout the Western world. The characteristics of victims in the United States have been described comprehensively (Dinno 2017; Panter 2023; Westbrook 2023). The only study estimating the homicide rate of transgender people suggests that their rate was lower than the overall population’s, though the rate for young black transwomen possibly exceeded the rate for young black males (Dinno 2017)."

References are in the reference section.

I'd hope an Oxford academic had more curiosity.