Williams Institute lied about transgender prevalence to boost their arguments

[Scrumplestiltskin]

A fantastic blog post on the fudging of facts and outright lies by trans people and institutes in regards to the prevalence of transgender people, in order to support their arguments and deny social contagion. Well worth reading. And it is SHOCKING that these stats are blatantly falsified - and then used by others, unknowingly perpetuating the lie.

In 2016, the Williams Institute released another report, estimating the transgender population of the United States as .6 percent of the total population, based on research from the CDC.
There’s … just one problem. The CDC survey didn’t estimate the trans population as .6 percent. In fact, the 2016 behavioral study cited by the Williams Institute said that just .1 percent of Americans identified as female-to-male transgender, and .2 percent as male-to-female transgender — a total of .3 percent, or half of what the Williams Institute claimed the data had indicated. An additional .1 percent designated themselves gender non-conforming.

culturallyboundgender.wordpress.com/2018/11/21/no-there-havent-always-been-this-many-trans-people-no-theyre-not-just-coming-out-more-because-its-more-acceptable-now-heres-the-evidence/

Clicky link: culturallyboundgender.wordpress.com/2018/11/21/no-there-havent-always-been-this-many-trans-people-no-theyre-not-just-coming-out-more-because-its-more-acceptable-now-heres-the-evidence/

Thank you, interesting read. Would be great if Stonewall's various and numerous statistics could be examined.

Would be great if Stonewall's various and numerous statistics could be examined.

In the same way that the Green Party had to hire in Verita to review matters for them, it would be useful if Stonewall conceded that they need to put their reports and statistics out to independent reviewers.

A decent health econometrician should be able to sort out the stats reasonably quickly/accurately. Perhaps even as a supervised third year or Masters dissertation. (DS had a good look at employment stats when he was at the LSE, but one of his friends covered a health issue.) Trouble is that you would not encourage anyone at the start of their careers to do so, as it could be career death in an area where #nodebate includes reviewing data.

It's incredible how many credible news sources use the Williams Institute statistics without any deeper investigation into the numbers they were based on. Makes you wonder what's happened to journalism when bloggers can uncover problems like this with numbers cited uncritically by most major news organizations.

It is a blog on wordpress. Has anyone kept a copy just in case?

It is a blog on wordpress. Has anyone kept a copy just in case?

Great point.

Just saved a PDF so if it ever goes down l will share it somehow.

I read the title as Women's Institute and thought we were all doomed.

Thanks, Ereshkigal, good idea. I'm not sure, but suspect it may be an independent site just using the WordPress format 🤔

Fucksgiven

Thanks for that, Scrumplestiltskin, that was very interesting.

Am I nuts or does that average out to 0.15%?

Am I nuts or does that average out to 0.15%?

I checked that before - but If think the source does give those figures (table 2) when you work through them because it looks like they did give the % of the sample that answered the question not the logical sex split, IYSWIM.

Among 200,874 adults from the 25 states and Guam who answered the gender identity question, 98.3% reported being cisgender, 0.2% reported being male-to-female transgender, and 0.1% each reported being female-to-male transgender and transgender nonconforming

Notes to the table given the question and answer options for transgender status:

Transgender status is based on responses of “Yes, transgender, male-to-female,” “Yes, transgender, female-to-male,” “Yes, transgender, gender nonconforming,” “No,” “Don’t know/not sure,” and “Refused” to a question, “Do you consider yourself to be transgender?”

www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/wr/mm6732a4.htm

www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/wr/mm6732a4.htm#T2_down