What do peer-reviewed studies say about rates of sexual offending among transgender people versus cisgender men and women?

1. What victimization studies show: large, consistent disparities

Multiple peer‑reviewed papers and syntheses document that transgender and gender‑diverse people face much higher rates of sexual assault, intimate partner sexual violence, and related victimization than cisgender people. A multicampus undergraduate study reported adjusted odds ratios for past‑year sexual assault of 3.93 for transgender students versus cisgender men ^[1]. A systematic review and meta‑analysis of intimate partner violence (IPV) found transgender people were about 2.5 times more likely to experience sexual IPV than cisgender participants, with median lifetime sexual IPV prevalence around 25% in transgender samples ^[2]. Cohort and survey work likewise reports lifetime sexual assault prevalences approaching half of TGD respondents in some studies ^[6].

2. Variation by study population and method: not one single number

Estimates vary widely by sample frame, age group, and methodology. College samples, community convenience samples, national victimization data (where sample sizes allow), and meta‑analyses produce different magnitudes—some reporting 2‑fold disparities, others 4‑ to 6‑fold differences for certain subgroups ^{[3] [1] [2]}. The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) analyses note disproportionate victimization for LGBT respondents but also emphasize small transgender sample sizes that limit precise subgroup comparisons ^[7]. Journalists and researchers therefore caution against quoting a single universal multiplier without noting the study context ^[8].

3. Perpetration: studies do not show higher offending by transgender people

Available peer‑reviewed work in the provided set shows little evidence that transgender people have higher rates of perpetrating sexual violence. A youth study found gender minority adolescents reported higher experience rates but similar perpetration rates compared with cisgender youth ^[3]. A 2024 study focused on perpetration among sexual‑orientation groups highlights that many existing analyses combine minority groups or lack power, and stresses inclusive, disaggregated research is needed; it does not present evidence of systematically higher perpetration by transgender people ^[4]. A Williams Institute survey of people on sex‑offender registries documents LGBTQ representation among registrants but does not establish population‑level perpetration differences and notes most registry samples are overwhelmingly male and White, complicating interpretation ^{[9] [10]}.

4. Measurement and bias issues that shape conclusions

Researchers call out multiple methodological problems that affect conclusions: small transgender sample sizes in population surveys, merging of sexual‑orientation and gender‑identity groups, selection bias in clinic or convenience samples, and assessment tools that may penalize same‑sex victimization in risk scoring ^{[10] [7] [4]}. The Static‑99R recidivism instrument, for example, scores same‑sex victimization as higher risk, which can skew analyses of LGBTQ people in registry data ^[10]. Authors also warn underreporting to police and lack of services can mask the true burden of victimization for transgender people ^{[11] [6]}.

5. Intersectionality and subgroup differences: race, age, setting matter

Studies note intersections—transgender people of color and economically marginalized transgender youth often report still higher rates of sexual violence ^{[6] [12]}. College research found predicted probabilities of past‑year assault varied dramatically by race and gender identity (from about 2.6% up to 57.7% across subgroups) ^[1]. Institutional settings (e.g., incarceration) are highlighted as particularly dangerous: reporting indicates trans women in men’s facilities face dramatically elevated sexual assault risk relative to cisgender men there ^[13].

6. What is not in these sources / remaining gaps

Available sources do not provide definitive, nationally representative population rates that disaggregate transgender perpetration versus victimization across all age and racial subgroups; NCVS studies are limited by small subgroup sizes ^[7]. There is also no single peer‑reviewed estimate in these materials that settles a universal “X‑times more likely” number for all contexts—variation by setting and method is the rule ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

Conclusion: The peer‑reviewed literature in these sources consistently documents substantially higher sexual victimization among transgender and gender‑diverse people compared with cisgender people, while evidence for higher rates of perpetration by transgender people is absent or not supported in these studies; methodological limits and subgroup differences mean precise multipliers depend on the sample and measure used ^{[1] [2] [3]}.