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.

One for the lurkers, this thread. Doing our work for us 👍

Many trans people are 'activists'. It's their batshit ideology that poses a problem to anyone with functional brain cells.
That's what she's referring to. Not that she wants to 'rid the world of trans people'. 🙄

Most of the victims were male, so unfortunately typical of the pattern of male on male violence.

As for yours and @WydeStrype’s questions about the statistics, I doubt there will be a response. There never is to the harder questions.

More comprehension problems. Surely no Oxford educated academic would resort to such cherry picking hyperbole?

It sort of feels like back in the early days of Women's Liberation, or even the Suffragette Movement.

In either case women would make statements and explain about how they have experienced or felt oppression by men.

And in response men would tell them it isn't true because they are biased as they are "anti men".

Whereas the bias is that men's view of the world is the correct one because men say it is.

But if men like Michael Biggs or Ace North tell us women what to think, that’s fine presumably… ?

But if men who 'identify as women' tell us women what to think, that's fine presumably...?

Oh wait...

they have offered up a piece about the rate of homicide of trans people which is not telling anyone how to think including us women.

unlike you I might add.

The list of powerful right-wing straight men trying to impose an anti-trans agenda on women is long. Trump and Vance, Viktor Orban, Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate.

So no, I’m not keen on men telling me what to think. I’ll make up my own mind.

It shall not take you much time then, to prove your point.

Good grief, it's like arguing with a person without a coherent argument.

Because I'm arguing with a person without a coherent argument.

Will you now? Make up your own mind 😂? Okidowki. Yes. You do that.

Men can be ... women. People can change sex using the power of their...duh duh duh!.. minds!

🙄

I do wonder sometimes whether trans-exclusionary feminists are bothered by the fact that they are helping to support the agenda of some of the most retrograde, sexist men in the world.

Blimey.
Transgenderism as an ideology is retrograde and sexist.

As usual you side step the issue.

My comment has nothing to do with anyone telling anyone what to think.

It is about making statements of fact, and the person who doesn't want to hear that fact tries to negate it by saying it isn't a fact, it is an expression of bias (even though it is a fact)

But as some one who left school at sixteen I find it extraordinary that you dont understand, or refuse to accept, that it is about a less powerful group having their words denied their validity, because the more powerful group doesn't like to acknowledge that the less powerful may not only be right but are pointing out that the problem is the more powerful group unable to accept that they cant get others to think like them, but may even be (which is outrageous!) right, and them wrong.

I have long begun to think that education seems to make people less able to think but only able to conduct themselves as advertising their education as thought that in itsefl makes them valid.

(Not forgetting that it was the pompous self righteous right winger Blair who though people were only credible if they had a university education. And look what that money making venture has turned into)

Well then if that's an 'education' that isn't worth having, (and I have a lot of sympathy for that view), how to reverse this?

"oxfordfeminist" who only joined last week and went straight to the Feminist section to browbeat feminists and call us 'anti trans' (proving that to be pro trans = anti women by their own admission). They don't even make an effort to appear genuine or neutral anymore.

We're MALE exclusionary feminists - we don't exclude trans men (females).

You cannot even get the most basic of the basics correct.

Actually, that is a good point TheBlackCat.

If an academic prides themselves on precision language, they would not use the term TERF. Many of us don’t exactly because it is not precise.

Many of the feminists who are discussing these issue are not discussing excluding female people who are naturally centred with all
other women. They do exclude male people though.

If Oxfordfeminist did indeed care about precise language, that would not be a term they would use. And yet, they are.

agenda of some of the most retrograde, sexist men in the world.

😂

Imagine telling mostly left wing women to shut the fuck up about a significant issue that has wide ranging impacts in the lives of women and girls because some men also believe the same basic universal fact.

If right wing men have realised that the left wing men were silencing the women and girls voicing their concerns and further realised that this is not only an issue needing to be addressed but also they can score political points with the issue, that is now women’s fault? Gosh, that is a rather misogynistic approach to not support the fundamental principles of safeguarding.

Imagine abandoning an issue simply because some dodgy blokes got in and stole the march while you (general you) prevaricated in Chesterton fence type philosophical debate about whether female people required safeguarding or not.

The tribal polarisation argument that you are now attempting is a weak distraction from putting forward coherent and thoughtful arguments about why this paper needs to have its conclusions withdrawn or changed.

But what can be more sexist than men insisting they are women and threatening women with rape, death and violence if those women say no? What is more sexist than putting a man’s desire to access women’s spaces over the needs of women for single sex spaces?

Some of these men are talking about the right of women to have their own sports whereas I’m sure before this happened they couldn’t have cared less. They’d have rolled their eyes and belittled women’s sports. Now it’s important to be aware of that and not forget they’re not actually feminists. You frame it as us following their agendas but we’re not saying anything we don’t believe in to please them. They’re the ones pushing the benefits of sports for women.

Imagine though, supporting extreme individualism over collectivism and then attempting to shame women by telling them they ’support the agenda of some of the most retrograde, sexist men’.

It's an interesting paper and will be handy in the future for countering the unhinged squawking of the 'trans' parrots.

OxFem, has definitely achieved DARVO, and we can almost call Bingo.

Ignoring post that undermine their stance - ProudAmberTurtle -
This is not the sort of paper that needs to be peer reviewed......
Ad hominem attacks on the author's
Whataboutery with the Christians
Right Wing guff
'educate yourself'
Gaslighting with the 'anti-trans' rubbish

The list goes on, I don't think someone with such an oblivious bias is in any position to dismiss the work of others on the bases of bias, I am therefore comfortable dismissing everything OxFem has to say on the subject.

"This is a formal warning from one of the world’s foremost genocide prevention bodies."

How does anyone take this outfit seriously?