@ONS census figures lose status as official statistics.

[GargoylesofBeelzebub]

In yet another episode of "The TERFSbwere right"

osr.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/news/osr-publishes-its-final-report-on-the-review-of-the-statistics-collected-on-gender-identity-during-the-england-and-wales-census/

It's not the size of the population, it's the power of the top trump.

Whereas with women, it's always n+1 for the demonstration of harm. For transgender accommodations N could be undetectably small when looking at the transgender population and still outweigh the N of women when it comes to policy-making, the NHS etc..

NB: for wonkery on n vs N you'll see I'm with the Chair of Biostatistics here but it does, indeed, vary with journal style (why make the life of reviewers any easier by standardising).

languagetips.wordpress.com/category/nn-and-sample-size/

It also minimises the problem though too.

1 male affects potentially thousands of women over the course of just a few years.

Oh gosh what a surprise!

It’s actually very annoying that we don’t get listened to in the first place. Imagine how much time, money and embarrassment would be saved.

Or proof of the trans genocide?

Agreed. Organisations, think-tanks, law practices etc. follow and implement Stonewall Law, find themselves in a semi-formal dock of public opinion (or at least peer opinion) where they lose their professional reputation.

Unaccountably, they're still proud that they went the distance and tried to face down evidence-based reasoning and women's hard-won rights.

Bad leadership and governance.

The statistics on sexual orientation are no good either, given there will have been an unknown number of men declaring themselves lesbians.

From the Guardian article

Statisticians north of the border posed a clearer question in their 2022 census: “Do you consider yourself to be trans, or have a trans history?”

So north of the border, you de-transition, change your mind, etc. but you are still counted as part of the trans community?

Not sure this question is much better

It's not the size of the population, it's the power of the top trump.

I know. I just meant, they had a figure which was being used merrily by organisations to claim a large population. Now that figure has been "downgraded". So what figure are they going to use now?

.

LOL exactly

These statistics are not accurate but they are well-intentioned. Well-intentioned statistics 🤦‍♀️

@ArabellaScott
Yep!

Scandalous, I want to see heads rolling at the ONS for this balls up.

Finally, common sense prevails.

The good news out of this is that earlier this year the OSR published guidance on data collection. https://osr.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/publication/collecting-and-reporting-data-about-sex-and-gender-identity-in-official-statistics-a-guide-for-official-statistics-producers/

If you get dodgy questionnaires, forms etc. send them the link. It’s a much better way of challenging by focusing on poor quality data collection rather than gender/sex.

'While only 10% of people said they did not speak English as their main language on the census, it appeared they made up 29% of the total number of transgender people, Prof Biggs said.""

https://x.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1834659435828199534

So the chart that shows rates of sexual offending (which used census data for the question of gender identity) also is under representing the "1 in ..." figure?

Well, if it's 262,000 less 29%, that's about 186,000 claiming to be trans.

And the damage to the authority of the stats has been done.

Am I right in assuming they were all counted as "non binary" because they didn't elaborate on their "gender"?

Ereshkigalangcleg · Today 01:47

Am I right in assuming they were all counted as "non binary" because they didn't elaborate on their "gender"?

Cripes, let's hope not, because that would include me, my wife and our daughter.

Not sure that is the right calculation.

Initial statistic T were trans

Of which 0.29T were mfl and 0.71T were ne.

0.71T should be 'correct' as true mumber of ne speakers
But actually ahould be 0.9 of Correct trans.

so 0.71T = 0.9C
T = 0.9C/0.71

so 0.29T is actually 0.29x0.9xC/0.71=0.367C

So number over calculated X is
0.29T-0.1C which is 0.367C-0.1C = 0.267C
X = 0.267C = 0.71/0.9 T X 0.267=0.21T

Ie overcalculation is
X=0.21T

So I think you can only discount around .2 not nearer to 0.3.

NB

1. I have only done this because FWR prides itself on accuracy, not to nitpick.
2. This is assuming that non native English speakers have no reason to be less trans than anyone else, which of course may not be true.
3. Someone else can check my maths, it is early in the morning!

I have only done this because FWR prides itself on accuracy, not to nitpick.

It's 30 years since I did statistics and realised that working on an official figure of 262,000 (?) with an error of 29% in one area was probably wrong, but just a rough as fuck guestimate.

Stats wasn't my cup of tea either!

Plus of course native English speakers may well have been confused by the question too, so the figures may be overestimated for other reasons too.

Stats wasn't my cup of tea either!

Oh, I loved it! It's just that we rarely use it and it's just a few standard formulae, using a macro. I liked the way it could be used to misrepresent political opinions, or levels of pollution etc.

I just don't delve into it, these days.

I don't know why they worded it so badly.