Talk:List of people killed for being transgender

Inclusion criteria - cisgender people killed because they were suspected to be trans

I'm aware of the past discussions on the inclusion criteria in the archives, however none seem to have touched upon this. Does the inclusion criteria for this list include cisgender people who were killed because they were thought to be trans?

A recent example of this is Michelle Dionne Peacock, whose attacker reportedly described the victim as a male acting like a woman during police questioning. As far as I'm aware, that case is still pending so I don't think we should include it yet, but if the attacker is convicted and it is proven that Peacock was killed because she was thought to be trans, would this be valid for inclusion in this list? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I don’t have any objection in principle to changing the criteria for inclusion in this article, provided this is agreed by other editors. But if we are to include any such killings, we’d have to change the title of the article. Do you have a suggested revised title? Sweet6970 (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Would we have to change the title? The current title is list of people killed for being transgender, arguably killing someone because you suspect them to be trans is the same as killing them because they are trans, so it seems in scope to me. The perpetrator is killing the victim because they perceive them to be trans, whether or not the perpetrator knows for certain that the victim is trans is kinda immaterial, as the intent was to kill a trans person.

I guess though you could call it list of people killed for being or suspected of being transgender, but that seems rather verbose and kinda redundant. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that the title should remain unchanged if the content of the article is changed. This would have the result that the title of the article would become a falsehood. How about as a new title: List of people killed for being perceived as transgender? Sweet6970 (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I would favor adding such cases to the list. On the title issue: WP:NCLIST gives some wiggle room, saying

The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject ... Instead, the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between the title not being a "complete description" and the content being completely different than what the title implies or represents. The recent example given would be a killing related to gender, I think? One could easily say the woman was killed for being a masculine-presenting woman in the eyes of this one man (to the point he believed she was a male). Although do we even know the victim wasn't trans herself given it's an unfalsifiable state of mind? Randomdude87 (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we know the victim wasn't trans. The sourcing on this killing indicates that she was cisgender. While the accused has yet to be convicted, he did tell investigators he believed the victim to be "a male acting like a woman" (per PinkNews, Fox59, and Huffington Post).

If the accused is convicted, I would argue that the victim was killed for being trans even if she wasn't actually trans, and that this is a case of mistaken gender identity. That seems like it would be in scope for this article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

When police shoot an unarmed suspect because they mistakenly believe his phone was a gun, the victim wasn't shot for having a gun. And no, we don't know the victim wasn't trans. Pink News is not a good source and doesn't validate the victim's gender identity. Fox59 does not reference anything indicating as such and makes no reference to "cisgender." Huffington Post simply says "Peacock was a 59-year-old cisgender woman" without explaining how they came to this conclusion. Are we to just assume someone's gender identity by default? I don't agree the perpetrator mistook her gender identity; he mistook her sex, evidenced by your quote. Due to this, I find it likely the sources are referring to her natal sex in their rebuttal, not how she viewed her own gender. They're saying, "but she wasn't a male trying to present as a women like he thought." The victim wasn't killed on the basis of her gender identity which is what the article is about. Randomdude87 (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

PinkNews is is a generally reliable source on Wikipedia. There is no requirement in WP:RS that reliable sources must show their working for how they assert certain facts.

Are we to just assume someone's gender identity by default? No, we go by what is stated in reliable sources. For the moment, it's verifiable to multiple reliable sources that the victim was cisgender. That may change in the future, but we can address that when that happens.

I don't agree the perpetrator mistook her gender identity; he mistook her sex, evidenced by your quote. The specifics of this case don't really matter right now, because I'm merely using this as a framing example for asking a hypothetical. I'm not saying we should include this article now, and in fact I've said in my original comment that we should not include it yet. The question I asked in my original comment is if the attacker is convicted and it is proven that Peacock was killed because she was thought to be trans, would this be valid for inclusion in this list?

Setting aside for the moment that broad speculation on a live criminal proceeding is not the purpose of an article talk page like this, speculation on the exact outcome of the case beyond the scope of the question doesn't really matter. This is because if the attacker is either not convicted, or it is proven that the victim was killed for any other reason, it would be inherently out of scope of this article. The only thing I'm interested in is whether or not a cisgender person who was killed, because their killer thought they were trans or non-binary, would be in the scope of this article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

1) PinkNews is a partisan source, which should be used with care. It does not say that Peacock was killed because her killer thought she was trans – that is the editorialising of the headline – which is to be expected in such a biased source.

2) What the story in PinkNews actually says is…. Earl told investigators Peacock was a “a male acting like a woman”… . A male acting like a woman is not necessarily trans – it may be a man who is acting in an unmasculine way. So this statement does not provide any evidence that the alleged killer thought the victim was trans.

Sweet6970 (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, you're focusing on the wrong point of my question. I'm not asking if we should add Peacock to the article now, I'm only using Peacock's circumstances as a starting point for this hypothetical situation. The usefulness here is that Peacock's case has the potential to be one where the accused killed her because he thought she was trans. The exact motivations behind her death of course remain to be determined, as the accused is still awaiting trial. I don't dispute that it's possible that PinkNews and The Advocate are wrong here, that Peacock was killed for some other reason, but you shouldn't also dispute until the case has been tried that they might also have it right. That's an open question for the criminal justice system to determine.

In any case, the question I'm asking is, if a cisgender person is killed because their killer(s) thought they were trans, would they be in scope of this list? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I know that you have moved to discussing whether, hypothetically, if a cisgender person is killed because their killer(s) thought they were trans, would they be in scope of this list? The reason I made my comment at 14:12 today is because I am concerned at your attitude to sources. My concern has been reinforced by your latest comment : I don't dispute that it's possible that PinkNews and The Advocate are wrong here, that Peacock was killed for some other reason, but you shouldn't also dispute until the case has been tried that they might also have it right. Sideswipe, PinkNews does not say (except in a headline, which doesn’t count for Wikipedia) that Peacock was killed because her killer thought she was trans – so your suggestion that if it turns out that she was, then PinkNews would be correct, is false. And I am not ‘disputing’ the reason why she was killed: I am saying we don’t have a source saying why she was killed. Please do not make assumptions about my thoughts on this aspect – I do not have an opinion on it, since there is not enough information available. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

PinkNews does not say (except in a headline, which doesn’t count for Wikipedia) that Peacock was killed because her killer thought she was trans – so your suggestion that if it turns out that she was, then PinkNews would be correct, is false I'm afraid this is incorrect. The PinkNews article states in the fifth paragraph of its body As per reporting by Fox59, Earl told investigators Peacock was a “a male acting like a woman” – implying he believed, incorrectly, that she was trans.

I know that you have moved to discussing whether I haven't moved to this, I've been asking this question since I started this discussion. Please see my original comment on 28 January where I asked Does the inclusion criteria for this list include cisgender people who were killed because they were thought to be trans?

I am saying we don’t have a source saying why she was killed. I know, I have also said the same thing. Respectfully, you seem to be under an impression that I'm advocating for including Peacock now. I am not. I have explicitly said in my comment on 28 January that As far as I'm aware, that case is still pending so I don't think we should include it yet, and on 27 February where I said I'm not saying we should include this article now (emphasis from original). I thought I had been clear that Peacock clearly does not meet the inclusion criteria at this time. The only reason I have brought her case up is in its usefulness as an illustrative example that has the potential to be a case where a cisgender person was killed because they were thought to be trans. Key word, potential.

The only thing I'm interested in, since I started this discussion, is whether or not a cisgender person who was killed because they were thought to be trans is or is not in scope of this list. That is all. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The only thing I'm interested in is whether or not a cisgender person who was killed, because their killer thought they were trans or non-binary, would be in the scope of this article. Fair enough. I do think it's relevant to the hypothetical to challenge what language constitutes confirmation of this motive, though. Previous killings are included as transgender-specific, despite language from the perpetrator indicating sexual orientation as their motive. If all is needed to reliably confirm this motive is an advocacy group to "interpret" it that way, the list loses credibility and accuracy, in my opinion. Maybe this should be a separate discussion, though. To answer your question re: because their killer thought they were trans or non-binary, I now think maybe, although still leaning towards no. If random people are being killed for being transgender, everybody is afraid of being a target. To me, this invalidates the reasoning for having specific hate crime classification to begin with (the added fear that a group is solely being targeted due to their membership). And as an aside, I don't agree that non-binary people should be included unless they also specifically identified as transgender, which many do not. Perhaps a specific page for that, or maybe changing this page title to use a larger umbrella term? Randomdude87 (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. “A man acting like a woman” could be an effeminate man, to the mind of the killer. If we have no source saying the person was killed for being transgender, then their death does not belong here. Zanahary (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm also fine with adding cases like that to the list despite the title. It should be clear in the description of those cases that they were not in fact trans, just thought to be trans by their assailant. Loki (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Add Fred Martinez, Jr. to list

2001 - Fred Martinez, Jr. (also known as FC Martinez) was a 16-year-old Two-Spirit individual found dead in June of 2001. Their murderer, 18-year-old Shaun Murphy, confessed to the crime later that year and was sentenced to 40 years in prison in 2002. [1] [2] CakesGoSupernova (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Wikishovel (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I don’t have access to the Washington Post, but I see that the Journal says: A Farmington man who admitted in the early 2000s to beating and killing Fred “F.C.” Martinez Jr., what some have considered a hate crime against the LGBTQ community, has been released from prison on parole. I don’t think this is enough to add to our list, because we would be saying in wikivoice that Martinez was killed for being transgender, when the Journal does not confirm this. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Both sources given by CakesGoSupernova indicate the source was an anonymous tip to police. In addition, they conflict with one another. Beyond that, they only affirm the potential motive was his gay sexual orientation, which is not a gender identity. Randomdude87 (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to be sure, due to the age of the sources and some of the original reporting having gone offline in the years since the conviction, but The Advocate somewhat supports the assertion that Martinez was killed for being trans where it says that Murphy could not be charged with a hate crime because, at the time, Colorado's hate-crime statutes did not cover crimes based on gender identity or expression. An article by High Country News about a documentary released about the killing also indirectly supports this where it says The hate crime opened up frank discussions about perceptions of gender among Navajos. It's all a bit weak sauce, but...

What I find most convincing however is that TDoR include Martinez on their list of people killed for being transgender, and the TDoR list is I believe part of the inclusion criteria. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The Advocate is not an unbiased source. It both states that he was the youngest person to die of a hate crime and then immediately contradicts it by stating it wasn't classified as a hate crime. It disingenuously implies that the only reason it wasn't a hate crime is due to lack of statutes related to gender. This is false and misleading. You can still find plenty of the original reporting online that make it clear that sexuality was the focus and it also wasn't on the books in hate crime legislation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/09/01/gay-youths-death-shakes-colo-city/98d8eab5-4afb-41b9-b83c-35d69d7cc88e/

Nothing in the Advocate link provided supports trans-identity being the motivating factor, including the quoted section. If anything, it affirms that sexual orientation was the issue, highlighting the "beat up a fag" quote and referencing the killer's mother being a lesbian. Everyone refers to him as both Fred and gay. I see no reason it should be on the TDoR list either. Randomdude87 (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The Advocate is considered a generally reliable source on Wikipedia. There's no requirement in WP:RS that sources must be unbiased to be used, as WP:BIASED states sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for information about a topic.

It disingenuously implies that the only reason it wasn't a hate crime is due to lack of statutes related to gender. Actually The Advocate are correct here. Gender identity (or as stated in the law, transgender status) wasn't covered under Colorado's hate crime laws until the passing of House Bill 05-1014 in 2005. It would have been impossible under the statute at the time of Murphy's trial for him to be convicted of an anti-trans hate crime, as the trial and conviction of Murphy happened in 2002. As a side note, the first successful conviction under the anti-trans hate crime statute in the state was for the murder of Angie Zapata in 2009 (CNN).

highlighting the "beat up a fag" quote Your or my interpretation of that quote doesn't really matter. What matters is how reliable sources interpreted it.

I see no reason it should be on the TDoR list either Then you may wish to contact the folks at TDoR who compile that list, and request that they remove it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no clear source saying that Martinez was killed for being transgender – the Journal quotes the murderer saying he “beat up a fag”. This does not require any special interpretation – we are not adding his name to a list of people killed for being homosexual. But it shows that there is no evidence that he was killed for being transgender. In this list article, we are saying in wikivoice that he was killed for being transgender, when we don’t have reliable sources saying so, and when one source not only does not mention this, but implies another motive. This is in breach of Wikipedia policy. Sideswipe9th, instead of suggesting that Randomdude87 should take this up with TdoR, you should provide a reliable source saying this murder was motivated by transphobia. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The question is, is inclusion in TDoR's list part of the inclusion criteria for this article? My understanding is that, after the RfC 2 years ago, inclusion in the TDoR list, along with several others like the HRC annual lists, is part of the inclusion criteria for this list. The inference here is that we consider the TDoR list to be a reliable source? Am I mistaken?

As for another reliable source, please see this 2008 paper from Sexuality Research and Social Policy. While it discusses how the racial element of the case was downplayed and suppressed in the national media, which ironically enough covers the "beat up a fag" quote, which in its original context was actually "bug smashed a joto" (joto being a derogatory Spanish term for a gay or effeminate man), it remarks heavily on how Martinez was murdered for his gender identity. This quote: For these reasons, we cannot say that Martinez was killed primarily because he was gay and transgender but also because he was Navajo and poor; this additive approach fails to account for the ways in which the racial and class dimensions of identity are produced by and through the other. sums up the multifactoral nature of Martinez death, with gender being one of the factors. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The Advocate's assertion regarding the absence of gender in Colorado's hate crime laws isn't being challenged. I'm disputing, 1) the implication that this omission of transgender identity is the sole reason it wasn't classified as a hate crime, and 2) that a general "hate crime" conviction should allow inclusion to this list; specific transgender status/identity must be clarified. Given that sexual orientation was also absent from legislation, one cannot conclusively infer that the lack of hate crime charges is due to absence of transgender status specifically. Reporting from WaPo, two months after the killing, underscores the imperative of updating Colorado's hate crime laws to encompass sexual orientation, suggesting it was the motivation behind the killing.

Per your link, House Bill 05-1014 states the following:

(b) "SEXUAL ORIENTATION" MEANS A PERSON'S ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORIENTATION TOWARD HETEROSEXUALITY, HOMOSEXUALITY, BISEXUALITY, OR TRANSGENDER STATUS.

As this page is for people killed for being transgender, not their sexuality, it's important to establish how we're reliably confirming the motive behind the killing. Sexual orientation and transgender identity are treated as distinctly separate entities (the former being used previously to exclude other deaths from this list). It seems inherently problematic that cited legislation conflates sexual orientation with transgender status, seemingly classifying it as a subset of the former. To me, this calls into question whether Angie Zapata's murder should be included, as well, but I'll limit this thread to Fred Martinez.

Your or my interpretation of that quote doesn't really matter. What matters is how reliable sources interpreted it.

How a third party interprets another's motive for something seems incredibly shaky for a definitive list (especially if they overrule quotes from the perpetrator that use known pejorative terms to denigrate homosexuals). Regardless, I'm new to contributing so am admittedly unfamiliar with the process involved. I'll research the links provided on how sources are graded so I can better suggest changes in the future. Thank you. Randomdude87 (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Per your link, House Bill 05-1014 states the following It does. However House Bill 05-1014 was the bill that added that text to Colorado Revised Statute 18-9-121. Prior to that bill, 18-9-121 did not contain the text OR TRANSGENDER STATUS. Because the statute prior to that bill did not contain any reference to transgender status, it was impossible for anyone in that state to be convicted of an anti-trans hate crime prior to 2005. According to Dave Kopel, writing January 2003 there had been numerous unsuccessful bills since 1991 to amend Colorado statute to include reference to trans people (using the language of the time, transsexual and transvestite). That is, quite literally, the sole reason it was not classified as a hate crime.

How a third party interprets another's motive for something seems incredibly shaky for a definitive list It is not our role as Wikipedia editors to interpret primary sources, we call that original research, something which is forbidden by policy. How independent and secondary reliable sources interpret primary sources, like criminal trial records is how we include content in any Wikipedia article. Per policy Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. This is because Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to ... avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Once again: Sideswipe, do you have a source saying Martinez’s killing was motivated by transphobia? Sweet6970 (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Patience my friend, it takes time to write out a full reply. I have just replied to this above. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the Birkbeck paper by Lamble. But this is thoroughly equivocal. It seems to be mostly saying that the racial element was ignored. It also says on p13 Although some would argue that the 40-year jail term to which Shaun Murphy was eventually sentenced is evidence that Martinez’s death did not go unnoticed, the media coverage suggested that this response was mainly owing to the public outrage over what was perceived as an attack spurred by homophobia, not a case of racialized violence.

So at this point in the paper, it is saying that (a) the racial aspect was ignored, and (b) the killing was perceived to be motivated by homophobia.

I was not aware that there had been an RfC about TDoR as a source, but I don’t see how this could override the general requirement of verifiability, especially when this article is entirely in wikivoice. This paper also speaks disapprovingly about TDoR. On p15, referring to the ‘narratives’ provided by TDoR for deaths of transgender people, it says: These narratives speak not to the honoring of life, but to the fetishization of death. Also on p15: As Ross described TDOR, It sure makes for a powerful street performance: candles, tears, hugs, and snuggles over cardboard pictures of butchered members of a marginalized minority produces emotionally charged images. But it functions, both theatrically and politically, to benefit a privileged subsection of the trans community. (quoted in Namaste, 2005, pp. 92–93)

So I still don’t think we have a source saying that this killing was because Martinez was transgender. But perhaps we could include it with a note that transphobia was one of the motivations?

Sweet6970 (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

So at this point in the paper, it is saying that (a) the racial aspect was ignored, and (b) the killing was perceived to be motivated by homophobia. On A yes. On B, no. The paper is quite clear earlier in its text that part of the reason for Martinez being killed was because he was two-spirit: For these reasons, we cannot say that Martinez was killed primarily because he was gay and transgender but also because he was Navajo and poor on page 32 states this. The takeaway from this sentence is that Martinez was killed for multiple reasons, being gay and transgender were two of those reasons, race and colonialism were others.

Where the quotation from page 34 comes into it is where the paper is critiquing how the media coverage and resulting public outrage focused on a single facet of the killing; homophobia. While it is true that homophobia was a cause, this paper also states that transphobia and racism were also causes.

I would be satisfied that the quotation on page 32 would support the content on Martinez, if it is felt that the other sources do not. I don't think a note that transphobia was one of the motivations is needed however, as the paper explicitly states that one of the reasons why Martinez was killed was because he was transgender (see quote on page 32). We could easily include the direct quotation from page 32 via the |quote= parameter in the {{cite journal}} template however. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, I respectfully disagree with your interpretation regarding That is, quite literally, the sole reason it was not classified as a hate crime. Whether a killing meets the threshold of "hate crime" is not the distinction needed for this list. It needs to be a killing specifically due to someone's transgender identity.

The linked PDF you're referencing makes it clear that protections against sexual orientation, specifically for homosexuals, ALSO weren't provided at the time, supporting my initial point: Almost every year since 1991, bills have been offered in the Colorado Legislature to broaden Colorado’s “Ethnic Intimidation” statute. The bills would turn the statute into a “hate crime” statute, bring homosexuals, transsexuals, transvestites, the elderly, and the disabled within its scope. It is further stated a paragraph below: Often, public debate on the Colorado bills revolves around whether homosexuals should “count” as a special group covered by the law. If the Colorado perennial becomes law, other groups will make claims for similar special status.

The quoted part of the other PDF highlights sexual orientation or the fact he was an effeminate man as motives. Neither of those reflect transgenderism as the motive, either. In the succeeding section, it goes on to affirm my initial points again: At the onset of investigation, Montezuma County Sheriff Joey Chavez stated that detectives were “looking at the boy’s sexuality, as well as the fact that he was Native American, as possible motives in the crime”. But race quickly disappeared as a relevant factor. [...] The outrage over the Martinez murder was subsequently channeled into lobbying efforts to reform Colorado’s bias-crime statutes to include sexual orientation. So again, sexual orientation was not included in the existing laws either, refuting the notion that the only reason it wasn't a hate crime was lack of transgender inclusion.

The PDF by Dave Kopel also cites the frequent inflation of hate crime killings by advocacy groups. It repeatedly points this out throughout the paper: Nevertheless, some advocacy groups continue to exaggerate the extent of hate crimes. Just my opinion, but this is exactly what I see happening in this case. In the original reporting (that you seemed to earlier suggest was meaningful), it's overwhelmingly clear that sexual orientation was the motive. But because recent advocacy groups you're citing "interpret" it their own way, now it fits. He was killed due to sexual orientation, race, gender, being a "two-spirit" and colonialism? The term "two-spirit" itself is a neologism created by advocacy groups that many indigenous people have vehemently rejected. Your own sources repeatedly contradict these narratives, quoting authorities who eliminated race as a factor. Whether you or anybody else interprets it that way shouldn't overrule the actual detectives in charge of the investigation, in my opinion at least.

I really think the rules for acceptance into this list should be better refined to avoid this exact issue. There is a 0% chance you won't be able to find SOME advocacy group claiming tragic murders for their own cause. We are dealing with another person's motivations, which is very difficult to ascertain in the first place. Whether a source is reliable or not is relevant on their trustworthiness to report facts, not to interpret the mind state or behavior of someone else. The most reliable source ever isn't more reliable than the killer's own words or the detectives and court systems prosecuting the crime. Randomdude87 (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Whether a killing meets the threshold of "hate crime" is not the distinction needed for this list. True, but it is a distinction that you brought up for some reason. You said the implication that this omission of transgender identity is the sole reason it wasn't classified as a hate crime Everything that followed on this was my responding to the point that it was impossible per the law at the time for Martinez' murder to be classified as a hate crime.

It needs to be a killing specifically due to someone's transgender identity. Correct.

But because recent advocacy groups you're citing "interpret" it their own way, now it fits Words change meaning over time. Sometimes new words are created, old words fall out of favour. Newer sources about a topic will often describe it in contemporary terms, in no small part because of linguistic change. That being said, I would not consider The Advocate to be an advocacy group, despite its name. It's a very longstanding and highly reputable LGBT magazine. Likewise I wouldn't consider an academic published in a peer reviewed journal to be an advocacy group either.

Whether you or anybody else interprets it that way shouldn't overrule the actual detectives in charge of the investigation, in my opinion at least. As in all things on Wikipedia, what matters is how reliable sources cover any given topic or point. If modern sourcing says that Martinez was killed because they were transgender, then that meets the inclusion criteria for this article. In this case, we have an academic source that states that Martinez being trans was one of several reasons why they were killed. That's all we need to include it in this list. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

True, but it is a distinction that you brought up for some reason. No, The Advocate initiated that point, and I highlighted its misleading nature. Your defense of it as supporting the transgender motive was incorrect, especially when you claimed That is, quite literally, the sole reason it was not classified as a hate crime. This is inaccurate. Hate crime laws for sexual orientation were also not applicable, which would have been a more likely charge. I've backed this with ample evidence, but we seem to be at an impasse if you disagree. what matters is how reliable sources cover any given topic or point. I referenced a WaPo article from that time, clearly indicating sexual orientation as the motive. That's actual coverage of the topic. If modern sourcing says that Martinez was killed because they were transgender, then that meets the inclusion criteria for this article Why would modern sources be inherently more accurate? While Wikipedia favors recent sources, it's likely because they'd offer updated, improved information; this does not apply here.

The WaPo piece, contemporary to the events, detailed with quotes from involved parties, is overwhelming in stating sexual orientation as the motive. It also accurately recognized Martinez's gender identity so this potential wasn't simply ignored. If the DA states, barring a confession in the case, the motive for the slaying may never be clearly established, Wikipedia's policy seriously can't favor what someone completely disconnected from the case theorizes a decade later, can it? A reputable source fact-checks information and reliably reports things. Reliably reporting the facts would be omitting the article because no motive was ever established. Again, I feel clarification is needed on what decides motive if it's not the only people society actually appoints to determine that: the courts or the killers. What determines motive should rely on judicial and investigative conclusions, not external speculations.

Nevertheless, in the interest of fairness, I found a more suitable source from that period for your argument. It's still from The Advocate and just another uninvolved party theorizing, but if that's all Wiki needs, I think it's a better citation for your case. "Everything so far leads us to believe [Martinez] was targeted for transgressing gender," says Denise de Percin, executive director for the Colorado Anti-Violence Project, based in Denver. "People who transgress gender and whose expression is not considered normal are the ones who are most often targeted for bias-motivated violence." Randomdude87 (talk) 08:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

For these reasons, we cannot say that Martinez was killed primarily because he was gay and transgender but also because he was Navajo and poor This is actually a negative statement, that Martinez was not primarily killed because he was transgender. We really need a positive statement from a reliable source that he was killed for being transgender. There does not seem to be a consensus that this death should be included in this article, which means that the entry should be deleted. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Eh? It's only a negative statement insofar as Martinez being gay and trans were the only reasons they were killed. When read in full this is a positive statement that there were multiple reasons for why Martinez was killed, their sexuality and gender identity were two of those reasons, their racial and socio-economical status were two other reasons. That is more than enough for inclusion in this list. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

If we leave the motives for a crime open to anyone's interpretation, this list becomes meaningless. Speculation can be abused by trans-advocates to inflate the numbers, as well as those writing articles to muddy the waters to exclude them. Randomdude87 (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Sideswipe: we cannot say that Martinez was killed primarily because he was gay and transgender is a negative statement.

I agree with Randomdude87 – Martinez should be deleted from the list.

Sweet6970 (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

is a negative statement I don't understand how you've reached this conclusion. How is it a negative statement? Is it, or is it not saying that there were multiple reasons for why Martinez was killed? And is it or is it not saying that his being gay and transgender were two of those reasons?

The inclusion criteria for this list are not that being transgender must be the sole reason a person was killed. If that were the case, that we could only include people who were killed for the sole reason of being transgender, then there are a lot of names we'd have to remove. Being transgender has to be one of the reasons why a person was killed before they can be included, but there can be other reasons as well. Recent example we're both familiar with, Murder of Brianna Ghey. Her being trans was a secondary motive for one of the two killers, with the primary motive for that killer being sadism. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Being transgender has to be one of the reasons why a person was killed before they can be included, but there can be other reasons as well. You are describing "List of people possibly killed for being transgender and a few other reasons (at least according to some PDF I found)". I kind of think it should be the sole reason a person was killed (or at least the reason for an initial negative contact that escalated into a killing). Being specifically targeted for no reason other than your trans-identity is the reason these killings are notable and need to be remembered. Many of these cases are extremely far from that. Randomdude87 (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

If you think that a person only meets the inclusion criteria for this list if the sole reason for their killing was because they were trans, then feel free to start a new discussion below on redefining the inclusion criteria. As it stands right now, the inclusion criteria allow for that to be one of any number of reasons for why the person was killed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

If we leave the motives for a crime open to anyone's interpretation, this list becomes meaningless. If a high quality source, like a peer reviewed research paper, states that a person was killed for being transgender, then that is a perfectly valid reason to include that person in this list. It's fully in line with how we consider WP:V and WP:RS. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree. A source should be reporting facts, not speculation. A peer-reviewed paper doesn't establish motive, it establishes what someone speculates motive could be. The court systems and/or perpetrators can establish motive, other can only speculate. Randomdude87 (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a compendium of what reliable sources say about a topic. If statements in reliable sources aren't sufficient to establish motive, then we shouldn't be using motive as the standard for inclusion in this list. Jd4v15 (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2024

Please change list of 2020 to include Nex Benedict, a Choctaw nonbinary 16 year old, who was killed February 8, 2024 by three female classmates in the Owasso High School women's bathroom. They had been bullied by these students for a long time due to their nonbinary identity.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68405972 Bacillus Anthra-TRANS (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: @Bacillus Anthra-TRANS: Per the BBC story and Death of Nex Benedict, Benedict died after an incident at their high school, but there is no cause of death reported yet to say that they died because of the incident (attack). Given the tag for out-of-scope entries on the list, I am against inclusion on the list, at least until there is a finding that the death was as a result of the attack. —C.Fred (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

In order to add Nex Benedict to the list, it would be necessary to show (a) that they were killed and (b) that this was for being transgender. According to the information currently available, neither of these things is established. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Here we have a very prominent case of a person who may have been killed for being trans. There has been a great deal of public discussion about the extent to which the victim's trans identity was a factor in their death. That discussion is directly relevant to anybody who wants to learn about the subject of this page -- and yet nobody reading this page will hear about it, because we're not allowed to mention it. In effect, we are misinforming Wikipedia users by failing to include highly relevant information due to an overly strict standard of inclusion. Jd4v15 (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Simmie Lewis Williams Jr

Victim is only identified as gay man by one source, referred to as a "boy" by his mother, and seemingly only included because he was wearing women's clothing at the time. Disputed transgender identity, unsolved murder, so no motive. It doesn't fit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomdude87 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The sources are clear that the victim was a gay man. There is nothing to evidence a transphobic motive for this killing. So I am deleting this item. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Remove Özge Bilir

Not killed for being transgender, killed in a argue whit a boyfriend..

https://tdor.translivesmatter.info/reports/2020/11/10/ozge-bilir_utrecht-netherlands_9ca1f2b4 Moooosy (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The source provided here confirms that this killing was not because the victim was transgender, so I am deleting Bilir from the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Remove Hilario López Ruiz?

I'm using google translate, so I would like a Spanish speaker to verify: I believe Hilario López Ruiz was killed for being gay, not for being trans. —Of the universe (say hello) 03:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The source is unclear. It does confirm that Ruiz was a travesti (which Google and DeepL mistranslate as transvestite), and implies that she may have been a sex worker. It says she was approached for services, while dressed as a woman, but the customer was homophobic and discovered she was a homosexual ("al descubrir que era un homosexual"). The customer then allegedly beat and asphyxiated her.

I can see why from reading it with machine translation you'd come away with the impression she was killed for being gay. Travesti are often perceived to be gay men, and often misdescribed as transvestites. As the source is unclear, I've tried searching for others on the killing. Unfortunately I've not been able to turn up anything bar the eswiki version of this article, which uses the same source that we do. It's possible that a print newspaper covering Ciudad Juárez or Tezonapa might have more information on this, but I've been unable to find it. As such, because the source is unclear I'll be removing it from the article, but I am open to restoring it if clearer sourcing can be found. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2024

Please add Nex Benedict (Choctaw descendant) age 16, who died of injuries sustained from a fight in Owassa High School after enduring bullying for their gender fluidity, and Righteous "Chevy" Hill of Atlanta, GA, age 35, still pending investigation to 2024 deaths. 2601:603:381:BE40:B43E:402A:A0CB:3EF6 (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Benedict's autopsy found their cause of death was suicide. Please provide a source for Righteous "Chevy" Hill. —Of the universe (say hello) 12:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Why does the article mention the skin color of the black victims (but not of the assailants)?

This article is about people who were murdered because of being trans. Why does the skin color/ race matter? And why does it only matter when the victim was black but not the assailant? The murderer of Rea‘Lynn Thomas for example is also black. Jimmy Leshawn Williams, the murderer of black trans woman Ariyanna Mitchell, is black. And I am sure there are more. Why not just leave skin color/ race out? In my opinion it should be mentioned only if the murder was motivated by racism as well as transphobia. What hardly is the case when the killer and his victim are of the same race. 194.191.224.155 (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)