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.

The Lemkin Institute put a “Red Alert” on the UK for “trans genocide”, something that was reposted by lots of TRAs, eg Webberley.

https://www.gendergp.com/blog/when-a-genocide-warning-comes-we-must-listen/

TRAs are never happy with statistics that debunk their claimed vulnerability.

Children don’t actually kill themselves that often. TRAs are mad that they don’t.

Trans identifying people don’t get murdered that often in the UK. TRAs are mad that they don’t.

etc.

Again, the statement I believe to be unfounded is the statement made by someone above that trans people claim to be the 'most oppressed and vulnerable group ever in the whole wide world ever'
[sic]

Trans people are ONE of the most marginalised and vulnerable groups in society currently.

Precision matters.

"Trans people are ONE of the most marginalised and vulnerable groups in society currently."

You will surely be able to provide references for this claim.

Not all trans people and allies would be comfortable using the term 'genocide' to refer to the persecution of trans people. Trans people and their allies are not a monolith.

That said, when Helen Joyce said, 'every trans person poses a problem to a sane world', her desire to rid the world of trans people seemed pretty explicit.

Precision matters.

Like calling authors “anti-trans”.

No one needs to provide a link to prove any claims oxfordfeminist debunks. That is a derail. Instead oxfordfeminist should explain their concerns with the data in the paper in the OP.

but by someone who is anti-trans.

Can you provide evidence of this claim please.

Biggs and North are both openly anti-trans. A quick google search will immediately demonstrate their views.

Precision matters but not so much as to not misrepresent what Helen Joyce has said.

My Google search shows that 'anti-trans' is a completely made up word, used exclusively by TRA's.

Trans people are ONE of the most marginalised and vulnerable groups in society currently.

Source please?

Why don’t you address the details in the paper they write and explain how the facts they’ve found are “anti trans”. We’ll wait.

But hey, if people want to cite and share this non-peer-reviewed article, they're free to do so. There is loads of non-peer-reviewed scholarship on the web, and some of it is great. Nor is peer review an infallible guarantee of accuracy and merit.

In the scholarly world, however, peer reviewed work has more credence. And when I first saw this article, I immediately wondered which academic journal had published it. When I realised it hadn't actually been published in a journal, that explained a lot.

What have they said that is anti-trans?

Specifically?

Precision matters.

Sorry, I'm not going to do your googling for you. As I said, do a five-minute search and their views are glaringly apparent.

Is that the new "educate yourself"?

Well if only 11 were killed in 26 years vs all the murders of non trans people…..

“That said, when Helen Joyce said, 'every trans person poses a problem to a sane world', her desire to rid the world of trans people seemed pretty explicit.”

Her point was about the accommodations that would have to be made for a group of people harmed by medical practices shaped by WPATH that likely causes physical harm to people that likely for their life time or develops in time that is directly related to these treatments. And that these treatments are being talked about as life saving and there is publicly accessible information that has dismissed the significant health side effects that this group might suffer.

On top of the medical issues there is the many safeguarding issues that governments and organisations have to make decisions on. Based on a person’s belief about their subjective reality that is not reflective of material reality. Where male people have claimed to be female people when this is not a possibility.

And yet, the term gets used a great deal.

I spent an afternoon recently trying to listen to women voicing their experiences and concerns listening to accusations being yelled at me and other women to stop ‘murdering children’ and to ‘stop killing me!’ (Ie the person yelling that into a microphone) . It went on for a very long time.

There were signs up about genocide too. And we constantly see this term used. Whether or not some people choose to use it or not, it is used. Organisations have issues alerts using that term.

It is irrelevant whether all people use it. It is being used in the media and being repeated.

But when terminology is being used such as ‘anti-trans’ to describe authors who are evaluating data for accurate messaging and also for pointing out risk areas, I am suspicious of the deflections being used to distract from the paper.

It is you who is making the accusation.

So, you cannot list the errors that they have made.

Precision matters.

You just wanted to make false accusations about them being ‘anti-trans’ and try to distract from the fact you haven’t addressed any inaccuracies in their part.

ok. Good to know that is all
we can expect.

Do you think the statistics they have shared are wrong? Fabricated? Inaccurate? Massaged?

What is it that you feel makes this bald statement of numbers so unreliable and troubling?

I personally find the most interesting element that the statistics available as shared show an alignment in rates for men and TW, rather than TW and Women. I feel this is a significant finding that underpins much of the GC perspective.

If it is this that you feel shouldn't be given credence then I would like to understand what is the issue and why?

If nothing else @oxfordfeminist you are proof that "There are none so blind as those who will not see".

Oxford feminist seems to me to not fulfil the criteria as

a- an academic

b- a feminist

And is probably not from, or resides in Oxford.

just my humble opinion.

I’d hope that an Oxford academic had better comprehension skills but this one particular topic certainly seems to sap all ability to read and understand posters comments let alone understand their concerns. It’s all ‘you’re just big meanies’.

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

It should not be beyond someone’s comprehension skills to read poster after poster acknowledging that men can wear a dress or makeup or high heels and no one cares. Neither should it be that problematic to understand why women do not want men who identify as women, based on their feelings, to have free and unfettered access to women’s spaces and women’s places. And yet it is…

I am keen to have corrected information posted by anyone seeking to discredit the information.

Otherwise, I think it should be widely discussed that male people with transgender identities have the same risk of being murdered as other male people. if it can allay those fears, surely that is a good thing.