Do trans men and trans women have different rates of sexual abuse?
Executive summary
Available studies consistently show transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) people face much higher rates of sexual violence than cisgender people, with lifetime sexual-assault prevalences around 40–50% in several large surveys (e.g., 47%) [1] [2]. Comparisons between trans men (transmasculine/AFAB) and trans women (transfeminine/AMAB) are mixed: some large analyses report no statistically significant difference between trans men and trans women for overall violent victimization (Williams Institute) [3], while some recent surveys and clinical cohorts find higher past‑year sexual‑violence reports among transgender men in specific samples [4] [1].
1. Transgender people face far higher sexual‑violence rates than the general population
Multiple national and clinic‑based sources report that transgender and gender‑diverse people experience sexual violence at rates several times higher than cisgender people. A frequently cited figure is that nearly half of TGD respondents report lifetime sexual assault (about 47%) [1] [2]. Systematic reviews and meta‑analyses also find transgender people are roughly 2–2.5 times more likely than cisgender peers to experience intimate‑partner sexual violence [5]. These sources converge that elevated risk for sexual victimization is a robust finding [1] [5] [2].
2. On trans men versus trans women: different datasets, different findings
The answer to whether trans men and trans women have different rates depends on which dataset you examine. The Williams Institute analysis of NCVS data reported that transgender women and men both had much higher violent‑victimization rates than cisgender counterparts but “no differences between transgender men and women” in overall violent victimization [3]. By contrast, a California survey study found past‑year sexual violence reported by 42% of transgender men but only 14% of transgender women in that sample, indicating higher recent sexual‑violence prevalence among trans men in that specific study [4]. Clinic‑based cohorts and older studies focused on trans women report extremely high lifetime sexual‑abuse figures (50–59% in some trans‑women samples) [6]. In short: some population surveys find parity, some local or clinical samples show higher rates among trans men, and clinical cohorts of trans women show very high lifetime rates—so findings vary by method and sample [3] [4] [6].
3. Why studies disagree: methods, sampling, definitions
Differences in results reflect varying study designs. National victimization surveys (like the NCVS analysis used by the Williams Institute) sample broadly and compare rates across groups, finding no sex‑assigned‑at‑birth difference between trans men and trans women in overall violent victimization [3]. Other studies use clinic cohorts or convenience samples that overrepresent people seeking care or community services; these often report higher lifetime sexual‑assault prevalence and may skew by gender‑identity composition [1] [6]. Measurement differences—lifetime vs. past‑year reporting, how “sexual violence” is defined, and whether nonbinary people are grouped—also change estimates [4] [1]. Systematic reviews note limited data to robustly compare AMAB vs AFAB transgender subgroups and call for more studies [5].
4. Important nuance: intersections change risk
Race, age, and setting shift the risk profile. Studies report higher incidence among transgender people of color, younger TGD people, and those experiencing homelessness or economic marginalization (p1_s3; [9] not in current sources — available sources do not mention this specific Trevor Project 2025 brief). One undergraduate study found transgender students had much higher odds of past‑year sexual assault than cisgender peers; within that sample, Black transgender students showed particularly elevated odds [7]. These intersectional patterns mean subgroup averages can hide important disparities [7] [1].
5. What this means for policy and services
Consensus across sources is clear on one policy point: transgender and gender‑diverse survivors need tailored prevention and post‑assault services. Researchers call for gender‑affirming violence‑prevention programs and improved access to competent care because of both the high prevalence and gaps in services for TGD survivors [5] [1]. National anti‑violence organizations likewise emphasize protective policies and training to reduce victimization and improve response [2].
6. Limitations and what’s still unknown
Available sources document elevated risk but also show limitations: sample composition, differing definitions of sexual violence, and small subgroup sample sizes make direct comparisons between trans men and trans women unstable in some studies [5] [4]. Systematic reviews explicitly state more data are needed to confirm whether AMAB vs AFAB transgender people differ consistently in sexual‑violence prevalence [5]. Any definitive claim about a universal difference between trans men and trans women is not supported uniformly across the cited studies [3] [4] [1].
Sources cited above: Williams Institute NCVS analysis [3]; JAMA Network Open survey and its PubMed summary [8] [4]; cohort and prevalence studies [1] [6]; systematic review/meta‑analysis on IPV [5]; survivor‑service and advocacy summaries [2]; undergraduate sample study [7].