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.

That was very interesting purple

IWearPurple

That's very interesting.

I don't think anyone with, an ounce of critical thought, thinks that survey was conducted to help anyone.

It's a marketing tool.

Cynical and manipulative.

It's incredibly depressing that these people are not held accountable.

And even if you overlook the methodological problems the way this is being interpreted is indefensible. Do they just not believe their own findings, or do they really think a 50% disability rate in trans people is too unimportant to merit further investigation? What if it's related to the use of hormones?

Poor research methods in the charitable sector really winds me up too, because it is so blatantly led by an agenda. They don't want it to be objective. And as a result, they hide things, they ignore or minimise stuff that they can't or won't explain. It's just bad. They don't know how to do it correctly and they don't care. But they still reckon they hold the moral high ground. Can you tell that i've worked in the charitable sector?

Anyway, this is a really interesting statistic. I'd love to be able to understand it better. Futile desire in this case of course.

"Poor research methods in the charitable sector really winds me up too, because it is so blatantly led by an agenda"

It is also damages the charities reputation and harms their cause amongst those who do have the ability to critically evaluate the findings.

I guess though, are things so dumbed down now, that grant awarding bodies etc won't look critically at their claims?

My diagnosis of ME, and then fibromyalgia, came when I was on zoladex, which is the same type of drug as prostap, the "puberty blocker" much discussed in recent times. It wouldn't surprise me at all if some trans people are disabled by the treatments they're given.

Just responding to @IWearPurple I found your response very interesting. I did some of what you mention in the past but that wasn't really my part in the research I did. I'm actually interested in hearing about the more technical to further understand. Is there any reading you can recommend (as I'm sure you have better things to do than write it all out here). I think knowing all this is extremely helpful and the problem is people, generally, have no idea about what makes a survey or statistics fair and truly representative. The figures given by Stonewall are taken as gospel, as we've seen from the oft bandied around suicide stats.

Anyway IWearPurple I want to thank you for that post, I think it's a very important one.

There is a good critique of one of the Stonewall reports here:
www.transgendertrend.com/stonewall-school-report-what-does-suicide-rate-mean/

It's referring to a different report, but a lot of the criticisms are still valid.

I also wonder on the subject of "identifying as disabled" how many have conditions that yes, are disabling, but in the general population people wouldn't "identify" as disabled because of them? Say... how many people (especially as they get older) have type ii diabetes or high blood pressure, but don't consider themselves disabled?

Does someone who is very...umm...inward looking... to "identify" under the trans umbrella (without sex dysphoria) also place too much emphasis on their health status?

The problem is we don't know any of these answers because Stonewall never release their methodology or data.

BeyondWW
I think you might be on to something there.

If you look at a lot of young SJW / TA type Twitter bios there is very often mention of a whole range of medical conditions listed as a way of defining yourself.

It seemed odd to me, like if I put "colitis sufferer" into my bio and considered it a disability ( I do have colitis as it happens and I know it can be extremely debilitating for some but it's not a disability as is commonly understood).

There does seem to be a trend amongst certain sections to use the most unlikely things to try to gain "oppression points" and thus be more worthy of being listened to.

I'm too old now to understand any of this.

Yy. I am disabled (the old-skool kind ) but a lot of people I see in disability groups live pretty much "normal" lives (and I know they aren't over egging the positives as they only really share negative woe-is-me posts in these kind of groups).
They do honestly seem to just want the "oppression points". There are frequent crowdfunders too...

I honestly think they target certain people who already feel they are not 'normal' for whatever reason. Autistic people are often trying to fit in and do anything different to be 'normal' - this is obviously just from my experience. I think it would be easy to push these people to think they're trans and thats why they've never felt they 'fit in'.
I've spoken to my mums partner about this and she said that because she was a tomboy as a child, if she grew up now she would probably think she was trans. It's quite hard because you could convince yourself of this and take hormones and surgery etc and these aren't reversible things to do to your body.

I honestly think they target certain people who already feel they are not 'normal' for whatever reason.

Of course they do - it is very cult like.

MadamMinacious, I had a quick search and here is a gentle introduction into how sampling works: www.umsl.edu/~lindquists/sample.html

A little under half way down, it mentions non-probability sampling methods. This was the method used by Stonewall.

In statistics there are two main sources of error, which is called bias (yes, another instance where a common word has a precise definition inside a field). I did a search for the language that I was taught, which I can't find, but there are two types of bias:

1. random bias
2. non-random bias.

Random bias is due to the fact that we have used a sample, to estimate to the population. Because any bias in the sample is random, it is presumed to have little effect on the results. This is why a lot of good studies present confidence intervals around the estimates - this shows that we think that the real result lies inside that interval, and the report shows the single figure that people are interested in. For example we might find that 35% (33-38%) of our young girls had outpatient treatment for tonsillitis. The figure of 35% is the one that people will use, and the confidence interval in brackets shows that actually, the real percentage could be as low as 33% or as high as 38%. And because our study was so good, we like the fact that the confidence interval (95% in this case, the normal confidence interval used) is quite tight around our estimate.

Non-random bias is the problem. Non-random bias cannot be adjusted for in statistical analysis because it is introduced by poor sampling design. The population is ill-defined. A sample frame wasn't used. The actual people answering were just anyone who decided they were motivated to fill in the survey (and maybe fill it in multiple times, to make a political point). Who answered the survey? Well, who knows. Were the people completing it actually the ones that were wanted? Who knows. Were the people completing it actually representative of the population (e.g. transgender) with respect to sex, age, disability status, ethnicity, country of birth, country of residence, personal income, household income, employment status, household type, duration of transgender identity etc etc. Who knows.

So what does the "data" mean? Well, nobody knows.

Sadly this is the point at which people tend to ask statisticians to come in and fix the data.

In the immortal words of Ronald Fisher: "To consult the statistician after an experiment is finished is often merely to ask him to conduct a post mortem examination. He can perhaps say what the experiment died of."

Beyond I think I would find that pretty galling tbh...and crowdfunders????

Oh yes.

Not exactly the same, but a snowflakey person joined a disabled students group I was in, stated they had flu and studying with flu is just like studying with a disability... The worst thing was all of the pity they were given by actual disabled people

Some people are just so entitled (to use a mn fave)

I can definitely see that kind of person as a pan-romantic demisexual non binary femme...

Oh good grief, some people have absolutely no shame and yes the level of self obsession & entitlement is breathtaking!

It is also damages the charities reputation and harms their cause amongst those who do have the ability to critically evaluate the findings.

You'd think that but given that so many charities do this and seem to get away with it .... I blame the way they get funding. You collect data all the year through and then when it's bid writing time you tailor it to show that you've had the most impact. Writing surveys to give you the answers you want is par the course.

IWearPurple Very interesting post, thanks. Have never really understood how smallish sample sizes can be accurate at all. I have the same issue with the BARB boxes for TV actually. There are a few thousand given out, and from that they estimate what millions of people view. Have kind of thought, what if for example Eastenders is just really really popular among the few with the boxes..surely this would fuck up the stats.

I don't think anyone with, an ounce of critical thought, thinks that survey was conducted to help anyone.

It's a marketing tool.

Of course it is. Stonewall and the likes would be much better served by doing actual proper research into this topic, rather than trying to garner public favour. Accurate stats could potentially help a lot of people. have Stonewall always been this useless? Before the T joined, they seemed pretty rational as a group anyway. A lot of my gay friends are pissed off at the route they seem to have taken relatively recently. I mean, supporting the notion that biological sex is irrelevant is literally erasing homosexuality.

Do they just not believe their own findings, or do they really think a 50% disability rate in trans people is too unimportant to merit further investigation?

This is whats getting me most tbh. if they do believe it all, howcome the fact that apparently 20% of non-binary people (again, all people are non-binary) experiences discrimination (discrimination as in, the house was given to someone else for whatever reason, or actual discrimination?) when looking for a house..is deemed more important than 50% of trans people being disabled.

Stonewall now seems as anti-gay as the Westboro Baptists, and is certainly doing more real harm to gay people than they ever managed.

IWearPurple - that's really useful info on proper statistical analysis.

...and I do think, on further consideration, that BeyondWW may very well be onto something.

Can't say I really agree with the disability comments here - anyone with a disabling condition is entitled to refer to themselves as disabled if they choose, or not. People with invisible disabilities get enough flack as it is.

Tammy, I have no issue with people with disabiling conditions identifying as disabled -my point was that people with the same conditions in the general population dont identify as disabled.