Always: 61% of young people have felt ashamed for having a period

[TeenPlusCat]

Ad just on TV as above

That can't be right can it?

Even if every single girl felt ashamed that would still make up only 51% of young people...

(sorry if this has been covered before)

People... I must ask my male partner if he's embarrassed then if it's all people.

But if they say people, then their statistic can't be right.
You can't use statistics and then change the population you are taking a percentage of.

Complain to the ASA that they are using false statistics. It's laughable.

Just did. I have never complained about advertising before, but that statistic is just so egregious.

@TeenPlusCat

But if they say people, then their statistic can't be right. You can't use statistics and then change the population you are taking a percentage of.

Yes, exactly. I'm putting in a complaint.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4494640-Always-advert-61-of-young-people-have-felt-ashamed-for-having-a-period
Just seen the earlier thread.

You are all just being wilfully ignorant. You know the 'who have had one' is implied.
This would be the case even if it used 'girls' instead of 'people'. Using basic definitions, a 'girl' would be a female child aged 0-17. So obviously not even 61% of girls would even of had periods yet, let alone felt ashamed of them. Using your logic here using 'girls' would make the statistics just as false.
If it said 'girls' you would inherently understand it, but you pretend not to when they use people?

anadult Are you saying that you know the statistic is only about girls? Then why did they not use that very clear word then, instead of using 'people'? We have sex based words so that if we want to refer to something that is only relevant to one of the sexes we can be clear who we are referring to.

@TeenPlusCat

anadult Are you saying that you know the statistic is only about girls? Then why did they not use that very clear word then, instead of using 'people'? We have sex based words so that if we want to refer to something that is only relevant to one of the sexes we can be clear who we are referring to.

Exactly this. If anyone is being wilfully anything, it's you, anadult.

If it is only relevant to one of the sexes then you don't need to specify do you? It's common knowledge and therefore it doesn't matter if people or girls is used because everyone would know what it meant.

If everyone knows it is only girls why do you need to make it clear? It's already clear, isn't it?

If I did a survey and then put out results saying e.g. '70% of young people play football weekly' that would be misleading if actually 70% boys play but only 20% of girls.
When dealing with statistics you need to be clear not leave it to the audience to decide you were incapable of using correct words.

anadult Why would they not use the word girls if that's what they mean?

@TeenPlusCat

If I did a survey and then put out results saying e.g. '70% of young people play football weekly' that would be misleading if actually 70% boys play but only 20% of girls. When dealing with statistics you need to be clear not leave it to the audience to decide you were incapable of using correct words.

False equivalence. In your example you are including ALL young people. There is no initial exclusion. This survey obviously was only for anyone who has had a period. Anyone who has not had a period is obviously not included as part of the 100% possible.

If your problem is the accuracy of the group then they would have to fully disclose every part of it and it would end up being "61% of young people who were born female who live in the UK and who have started having periods and who replied to our survey...." for true accuracy. Except we don't do that, because we take it as given that only those relevant to the survey are included.

If you have a problem with young people being used instead of girls that's fine, but don't pretend it's an accuracy issue, when it really isn't in this case.

It is easy to interpret correctly when it's something like periods which we know only half the population have, aided by the fact that 61% of people talking about their periods is impossible. But if the number was only 20% I wouldn't know it it meant 20% of girls and 10% of young people, or 40% of girls and 20% of young people.

And yes, the 'old enough to menstruate bit is also implicit; this isn't about the views of four year olds, but that can be logically inferred.

What about if we were talking contraception: something both sexes need, but have very different experiences of. If you say 20% of people are happy with their contraceptive choice what do you really mean? 20% of women? Or did you survey men too? Is it a that 30% of men are happy, but 10% of women are? Or is it 20% of women and you didn't survey men. It quickly gets confusing. Now you always have questions about the sample when interpreting any survey, but this is an extra level of confusion.

Are you saying that you know the statistic is only about girls? Then why did they not use that very clear word then, instead of using 'people'? We have sex based words so that if we want to refer to something that is only relevant to one of the sexes we can be clear who we are referring to.

Exactly, for all that these words have been appropriated by members of the opposite sex. We're being expected to infer, and it's expected that we will pander to the sensibilities of people who claim not to be believe that biological sex is a meaningful way to categorise people. Gaslighting squared.

If you have a problem with young people being used instead of girls that's fine, but don't pretend it's an accuracy issue, when it really isn't in this case.
No, it is about accuracy, as well as being about a curious decision not to use the word 'women' or 'girls' or ''women and girls'.

So, we can't use the word girls if we know we are talking about girls, because we know we are talking about them so we only need to say people instead.

Not saying you can't use the word girls. Just saying that in this instance it isn't necessary for it to be understood. So trying to force specific wording isn't needed. I thought we were against compelled speech anyway? Or is that only for TRAs?

As someone with a maths degree I'm for accurate speech, and unclear statistics upset me. If you start fudging statistics 'because everyone knows what you mean really' then you are on a very slippery slope.

@anadulthumanfemale

Not saying you can't use the word girls. Just saying that in this instance it isn't necessary for it to be understood. So trying to force specific wording isn't needed. I thought we were against compelled speech anyway? Or is that only for TRAs?

I think it's more likely that Always feel compelled not to use the words girls or women, in case they incur the wrath of certain elements of the trans and trans-supporting communities.

So you are agreeing that it would have to say "61% of young people who were born female who live in the UK and who have started having periods and who replied to our survey...." then?

Because just saying girls would be unclear and inaccurate too. As you say, you can't just leave it at 'girls' and expect everyone to know exactly what you mean.

Because just saying girls would be unclear and inaccurate too.

It would be a lot more accurate than "people".

You shouldn't have to read the small print on an ad to know whether they mean 'young people' or girls. Yes if you want to know the full details that take too long to say in a 30 second ad, but actually the word girls here is more accurate and faster to say, so there is no excuse for making the statistic less clear.

As someone with a maths degree I'm for accurate speech, and unclear statistics upset me. If you start fudging statistics 'because everyone knows what you mean really' then you are on a very slippery slope.

I agree.