From stonewall report - 51% of transpeople are disabled

[Vicxy]

Stonewall did not think this reponse worthy of being involved in the 'key findings' part for some odd reason, as its a huge discrepancy with the non-trans community.

Posted before I finished, again. Sick of this

www.stonewall.org.uk/comeoutforLGBT/lgbt-britain-trans-report

The stat about disability is on the pdf version, as stonewall did not find it noteworthy enough to put on this page.

From the key findings though, I think this one is totally useless

More than a third of trans students (36 per cent) in higher education have experienced negative comments or behaviour from staff in the last year.

What negative comments? Was it transphobic comments? Or was it telling them to be quiet while the teacher is talking, or telling them that they failed an exam? Though the letter 2 would likely count as transphobia to some

I find this statistic astonishing, given that the population as a whole is 18%ish

I find it even more remarkable that Stonewall choose not to comment on this:

Are disabled trans people discriminated against because they are disabled or because they are trans

Does the huge over representation suggest that

• their recruitment of subjects was shit?
• that disability "causes" people to ID as trans?
• That transition causes disability?

So many questions, and Stonewall don't even comment let alone do some research.

The whole study is deeply flawed, but this really stood out to me too.

I genuinely am wondering if Stonewall ignored this because there are already links between autism and trans? And they did not wish to make this any worse? But its something that simply HAS to be explored. If we are medicating people who simply have autism and cutting off their healthy body parts simply as they see the world in a different way to the rest of us..well..

Not saying all of the disabled respondents have Autism mind, but its definitely something worth thinking about.

Are they all disabled or are some of them transabled?

Stonewall did not publish the questions asked so it is impossible to know how they defined it.

The trans person I know who is disabled has an autoimmune disease, not autism. Why would you assume autism? (Genuine question,not a feminism regular)

Autism is very over represented in the trans population.

My first thoughts were autism and mental illness. But without explanatory notes who can say?

Ok thanks I didn’t know that

Why would you assume autism? (Genuine question,not a feminism regular)

Because links between trans and Autism are pretty strong. Autistic people are much more likely to view the 'rules' of femininity and masculinity as absolute.

I did see someone suggest that some conditions could be caused by hormone blockers / hormones / surgery gone wrong.

Stonewall really need to publish their full methodology and data though.

I honestly don't know about this one. I'm no statistician, am gender critical and have no knowledge of disability issues. All I know is that before I saw this statistic or any mention of the subject, I'd been wondering whether this was a thing.

Statistically, of course, it means nothing, but out of six trans-identifying people I know, five of them have life-limiting health conditions. In every case it's a combination of musculoskeletal issues/chronic pain/chronic fatigue.

Isn't the trans/autism link caused by the fact that autistic people struggle to learn social roles, so experience 'gender confusion'?

In the case of the people I know, only one of the five has had any hormonal/surgical intervention. The other four (I know them well) have not.

I don't believe a word Stonewall come out with anymore.

Has there been much fall away from the LGB community in regards to these groups?

In every case it's a combination of musculoskeletal issues/chronic pain/chronic fatigue

I have read anecdotally that taking cross sex hormones can cause a lot of muscle pain. O don't know if that is an actual thing though.

With these sorts of numbers, someone should really be trying to find out though

ItsAll, I'd have thought it was down to something like that if the only person I knew with musculoskeletal/fatigue issues was the one (MTF) who takes hormones and has had surgery.

The others are one MTNB, two teenage FTM, one 40s FTM, none of whom have taken hormones. The one with no issues is 30s FTM, no hormones.

With numbers like that, I agree it really needs to be studied. I'd love it if it could be studied from an objective viewpoint, by someone with no agenda other than finding out the best way to help people. I'd hate to think of it being used as an argument by either side of this tbh.

Statistically, of course, it means nothing, but out of six trans-identifying people I know, five of them have life-limiting health conditions. In every case it's a combination of musculoskeletal issues/chronic pain/chronic fatigue.

I wonder if its the long term hormones and/or 'harmless' puberty blockers causing these issues. This is very concerning tbh

In the case of the people I know, only one of the five has had any hormonal/surgical intervention. The other four (I know them well) have not.

OK, replied before I saw this. Maybe not then.

Are they actually disabled or do they identify as disabled

The "results" are uninterpretable.

In statistics, we define the population to which we are going to generalise (e.g. "younger people who have been ill recently"). We then operationalise that into a sampling frame (e.g. "people aged between 15 and 21 years at the time of the survey, who are not in residential care or incarcerated, who had a hospital visit in the last 12 months"). We then cut the sample based on the sampling frame.

Depending on the sample size (which is often affected by funding), we may choose to "over sample" subpopulations in the sampling frame, so we get accurate statistics on them. Some subpopulations can be so small, that you might only get about 10-20 people in your survey, and that's not a large enough number to produce accurate statistics. We adjust for the oversampling by using weights to compensate.

The sampling frame sample is identified ahead of the survey, and the sample is drawn from that (e.g. 500 young people randomly drawn from hospital records that meet the criteria). We then attempt to survey those 500 young people. Based on the number of completed surveys, we calculate the response rate, which is one measure of bias of the results. We then apply our weights to the data so that it is analysed with the sample being as close to the sampling frame as possible (e.g. we might have undersampled boys, based on the overall data, so an adjustment is made for this).

What we end up with are results that are generalised to the entire sampling frame, which are estimates of how everyone in the sampling frame would have answered, had we included everyone. We can do this because we have controlled the sampling frame and the sample.

The Stonewall survey did not do this. It had no sampling frame, and therefore it had no basis upon which to produce accurate statistics. In addition, it is very easy for online surveys like this to be answered over and over by the same person.

So basically the Stonewall report can only be used as an indication of how the respondents to the survey answered. The results cannot be generalised to a population/sampling frame as Stonewall never defined those.

And then there's the questions! Were they leading? Was the survey cognitively tested or field tested ahead of undertaking the full survey?
LOL at the likelihood that happened.

There's a whole bunch of really technical other factors that I won't go into, but that's the gist of how bad that "survey" really is.

And this is the sort of thing that makes me really pissed off at people (present company excluded, obviously) who make out that doing surveys and social science is really easy. Also, strangely enough, the ones pouring the most poo onto this tend to be boys and men.

Tirade over, I promise!

Sorry for posting a thesis, I didn't realise it was that long when I was het up writing it.