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.

Given the ideological capture of some 'academic' publishers, peer review in the field of gender studies has lost a lot of its credibility.
The activists will undoubtedly be combing this work looking for flaws. Let's see if they find any.

It tells us two things:

1. The trans victim narrative is a lie. Cross-dressing men are twice as likely to be murderers than murdered. And of the ones that are likely to be murdered, it's almost always by a male sexual partner.

1. The media, specifically the BBC, has lied non-stop about cross-dressing men in order to change the narrative. They barely reported on the murders that cross-dressing men commited, and when they did they mostly didn't mention that they were trans. But when one is killed, they were about 5 times more likely to report on this, and almost always mention trans.

The BBC deserves to have its licence removed over this lie.

Why would this paper have any more credibility if it were published by a biologist? It’s about crime statistics, and then it’s about media reporting.

In any event, if it’s to be attacked then that has to be on the basis that the data is wrong. But that isn’t a matter of professional expertise. So you can’t use an appeal to authority.

The reason that this paper is important is because whether a demographic is more likely to kill or be killed is a strong indicator of their vulnerability. Which demographics do we know are more likely to be killed than to kill? Women, obviously. Children, old people, disabled people.

There are demographics where it's much less obvious - young men are over-represented amongst murderers but they also make up a hefty proportion of victims.

I'd hazard a guess that there are very few demographics where we can say with confidence that members are more likely to kill than to be killed. Trans women are one such demographic. It rather gives the lie to the claim that they are uniquely, or even particularly, vulnerable.

As a general point, it's always fascinating to see posters making claims to an initial specific identity and then morph into spouting the full range of transactivist tropes. There seem to be significant levels of emotional incontinence involved? As someone who would never dream of seeking out places where people gather who I disapprove of or dislike, it's a fascinating exercise observing the behaviour of those who seek to admonish and correct women and our wrongspeak / wrongthought.

The one constant is always an escalation from disinterested commentator to full on anti women frothing 😄

Oxfordfeminist first showed up on the big tits Oxford thread and hasn't posted anywhere else besides these two threads. The chances that OF is an actual Oxford academic are pretty slim, I think.

Peer review is to check the robustness of the methodology.

it’s not a judgement on whether the conclusions are right or wrong, it’s whether enough data has been used, checks and balances against the data- have all points been included, if anything has been excluded because it skews the results. Are the conclusions sound based on the data presented.

the more prestigious the journal the higher the bar is. If you have very good research, it will pass the peer review. If it’s weak, you will need to try a “lesser” journal until you find one that will pass your methodology.

so it does make me wonder why this hasn’t been presented for peer review and published in a relevant research journal. Statistics are very easy to manipulate, but if it is genuinely based on the numbers and the interpretation is sound then peer review would be a matter of course.

peer review is not a process to judge the research or decide on the subject matter. It is simply the process journals use to make sure they are publishing work of an appropriate quality. In today’s “fake news” world items especially important as it provides a baseline on how reliable the data is.

Yes - in this case the escalation MrsO describes went from faux naive “I don’t personally know Big Tits but I’m sure they are a lovely person just living their best life and I would be happy to share a coffee with them” to “you and the researchers whose research you share are all anti-trans bigots”.

They've just published a paper that counted the same numbers that women on here have counted already. We don't need them to be able to count up into the medium 20s, we already did it. All they did is confirm things, which we already knew.

It’s at this point it’s clear their argument (such as it was) has run out of tread.

😃

Two chances.

Indeed. I shared this, from Victoria Smith, on the other thread, but it bears repeating here:

There are people who think that sex is binary and immutable, and that all female people must be feminine, all male people masculine, and that same-sex relationships are wrong. Then some believe that sex is binary and immutable, but that masculinity and femininity are regressive concepts, and that same-sex relationships deserve protection in law. One of the ways in which trans activists and their defenders in academia and the media have sought to silence members of the latter group is by pretending they are no different to the former. They are, we are supposed to think, all members of the "global anti-gender movement". This conflation of two very different positions, promoted in books such as Judith Butler's Who's Afraid of Gender?, allows supporters of gender ideology to avoid any
engagement with feminist, pro-LGB arguments against it.

Yes. The main point about this paper is the BBC's twisting and distortion in reporting of a topic.

Plus it has long been established that the 'Peer Review' process is circle jerk and that many 'established journals' are printing utterly pointless nonsense circle jerked by this peer review process.

"one of the world’s foremost genocide prevention bodies."

Batman?

A peer review involves more than someone simply reading and critiquing a study you know. A peer review presumes a level of equivalence; of someone already working in the field and having produced similar work themselves.If you don't like or agree with the findings of a study you need to provide alternative evidence using the same criteria.

I imagine you would similarly dismiss any journal it may be published in.....simply because it revealed data that you don't like the look of.

It is fascinating.

And whatever the research, from MN posters and threads alone:

Are these men, and activists, supportive of women's voices?
Do they support and advocate for women's boundaries, privacy and dignity?
Do they understand and advocate for facilities accessible to women with histories of trauma, disability, culture, women's own identities?
Do they respect women when they say no?
Do they accept women's 'no' as meaning 'no' when they have a personal agenda they wish to enforce on women?
Do they advocate for strong safeguarding with a good knowledge of what this means and how it works?
Do they share concerns and advocate for women in regard to incidents in which men from this group have committed serious assault and harm on women through having special access to women's spaces?
Is there a spectrum of views on this moving from high levels of concern and advocacy for women to lower levels?

The objective answers are right there on many threads.

Just going by these MN posters alone, it is evidenced and very clear that this political position as a whole is in serious red flag territory for unsafe men and high risk behaviour.

That point jumped out at me as well. Three times as many BBC articles when the trans person was killed as when the trans person was the killer.

No wonder your average citizen comes away with an impression of whole scale violence against the trans community rather than the reality of typical male on male violence.

Quite.

It is a political narrative, quite intentionally created. For political reasons. Involving active suppression of inconvenient facts and truths.

The BBC should have lost its licence years ago.

Glad you agree that the statement trans people are the most oppressed and vulnerable ever in the whole wide world ever is hyperbole and inacccurate perhaps you could pass that on to the transactivists, their supine allies and the numerous politicians who parrot it at least once a day and twice on Sundays.

Not anti-trans - anti the unevidenced, untrue, inaacurrate bullshit that they deploy in pursuit of their demands, I am sure you are intelligent enough to understand that.

In other news, I am neither royal nor a corgi.

I think it's most likely that Oxfordfeminist is simply the same bloke who regularly turns up on here under a variety of user names to berate us for being bigoted, right-wing, transphobic etc.

I think you are entirely correct here (but Boiled is totally a beetle)

I've been dead for years.

At least it was 'off to do some marking' as opposed to icing that never ending bloody cake.