Radical Feminism

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26822
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Nov 19, 2014 12:50 pm UTC

HungryHobo wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:They don't need to be utterly without utility in order to justify reconsidering them. The fact that "male" and "female" unambiguously categorize the majority of people is not sufficient reason to close your eyes to the fact that those categories leave out a couple percent as well.


Who said anything about that?
In general, if I reply to something without quoting it, it's because I'm replying to the post directly above my own. This was no exception.

1 in 300 sounds like a highball figure, the figures I've come across tend to be more along the lines of 1 in 1000.
Did you read the words that preceeded that number? It's meant to be the total of intersex *and* transgender people. Also remember that intersex doesn't just mean hermaphroditism or whatever people often think.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby HungryHobo » Wed Nov 19, 2014 1:23 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Did you read the words that preceeded that number? It's meant to be the total of intersex *and* transgender people. Also remember that intersex doesn't just mean hermaphroditism or whatever people often think.


Yes, the "*" made me think you meant to include some kind of footnote, the 0.3% figure is what sounds like a highball to me.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why ... opulation/

Gary Gates is an LGBT demographer at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law’s Williams Institute, which studies sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy. He is responsible for one of the most frequently cited estimates of the transgender population — 700,000, about 0.3 percent of U.S. adults. That figure is based on data from two surveys. One, conducted in Massachusetts in 2007 and 2009, found that 0.5 percent of respondents ages 18 to 64 identified as transgender. The other, done in California in 2003 to look at trends in LGBT tobacco use, found that 0.1 percent of adults in California identified as transgender. Using the surveys to get to the 0.3 percent estimate “takes a lot of statistical gymnastics,” Gates said.


keep in mind that a lot of these surveys show percent of respondents which is a different beast to the percent of the population because people who care more about it are more likely to respond and if your population isn't representative (like say the humanities department of a major university) of the general population that makes a big different too.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26822
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Nov 19, 2014 1:46 pm UTC

So studies came up with 0.5% and 0.1%, and instead of going with the middle estimate of 0.3%, you've decided to go only with the lowest reported number?

On what basis, exactly? Did the MA Department of Public Health restrict their survey to a single university humanities department?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby HungryHobo » Wed Nov 19, 2014 2:10 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:So studies came up with 0.5% and 0.1%, and instead of going with the middle estimate of 0.3%, you've decided to go only with the lowest reported number?

On what basis, exactly? Did the MA Department of Public Health restrict their survey to a single university humanities department?


... you honestly believe the way to get the right answer is to average the highest and lowest?

you should probably include the really highball estimates from people who claim that almost everyone is trans and just say 50% of everyone is trans.

If the guy who's work is the source that's gets cited by people making those 0.3% says it “takes a lot of statistical gymnastics,” to get that number out of his work then I'm less inclined to trust that claim.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5538
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby doogly » Wed Nov 19, 2014 2:44 pm UTC

This is a study on humans. They're just so warm, wet and noisy, we're really not going to pretend any number is accurate to to the tenth of a percent, are we? The point is that it's small but not zero. Male and female are reasonable categories for statistical but not ethical or social norms. We use the word "norm" in ways that are unfortunately easily to conflate. A pox on language. More problems with warm, wet, noisy humans.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby HungryHobo » Wed Nov 19, 2014 3:05 pm UTC

doogly wrote:This is a study on humans. They're just so warm, wet and noisy, we're really not going to pretend any number is accurate to to the tenth of a percent, are we? The point is that it's small but not zero. Male and female are reasonable categories for statistical but not ethical or social norms. We use the word "norm" in ways that are unfortunately easily to conflate. A pox on language. More problems with warm, wet, noisy humans.



hear hear
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26822
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Nov 19, 2014 3:36 pm UTC

HungryHobo wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:So studies came up with 0.5% and 0.1%, and instead of going with the middle estimate of 0.3%, you've decided to go only with the lowest reported number?

On what basis, exactly? Did the MA Department of Public Health restrict their survey to a single university humanities department?


... you honestly believe the way to get the right answer is to average the highest and lowest?

you should probably include the really highball estimates from people who claim that almost everyone is trans and just say 50% of everyone is trans.

If the guy who's work is the source that's gets cited by people making those 0.3% says it “takes a lot of statistical gymnastics,” to get that number out of his work then I'm less inclined to trust that claim.
I'm not saying take the average of every number anyone spouts, but averaging reliable results makes more sense than just picking one of two studies to ignore completely.

There's good reason to completely disregard the 100% claim (namely, no data backs up such a claim). You have *not* provided any good reason to completely disregard the MA study. Unless there's justification for thinking the CA study is reliable and the MA one is not, you're just picking the number you personally prefer for whatever reason.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby HungryHobo » Wed Nov 19, 2014 5:42 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:You have *not* provided any good reason to completely disregard the MA study. Unless there's justification for thinking the CA study is reliable and the MA one is not, you're just picking the number you personally prefer for whatever reason.


You're right though I have provided a quote from a domain expert that puts the 0.3 figure into disrepute, I'm more inclined to believe either the 0.1 or the 0.5 number depending on which seems most reliable once I get time to look into it more.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26822
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Nov 19, 2014 5:55 pm UTC

HungryHobo wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:You have *not* provided any good reason to completely disregard the MA study. Unless there's justification for thinking the CA study is reliable and the MA one is not, you're just picking the number you personally prefer for whatever reason.


You're right though I have provided a quote from a domain expert that puts the 0.3 figure into disrepute, I'm more inclined to believe either the 0.1 or the 0.5 number depending on which seems most reliable once I get time to look into it more.
Your quote justifies keeping pretty wide error bars around 0.3%,it doesn't justify thinking 0.3% is significantly less likely than the results to either side.

If both studies had the same sample size and were equally well-done (which almost certainly wasn't the case, but suppose it was for the sake of argument), and if the actual population percentage is the same in CA and MA, then the greatest likelihood estimate for the real population percentage is indeed the average of the two results.

But my point was simply that, since you yourself don't have any better information than either of those studies provided, just picking one and throwing out the other is *worse* than concluding that the real figure is probably somewhere in the middle.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26822
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Nov 19, 2014 9:16 pm UTC

It looks to me like the CA study was a preselected LGBT population and thus produces its 0.1% number based on an estimate of what portion of the total population are LGBT as well as on the assumption that the surveyed LGBT people are a good representation of all L, G, B, or T people in the state.

Meanwhile, though I don't know what happened in 2007 or 2009, I tracked down the fact that in 2012 and 2013 in MA they called thousands of adults as part of their regular behavioral risk factor surveillance system, and both years 0.4% of those adults reported identifying transgender. (Which is to say, it doesn't have any of the sources of bias you claimed such studies usually have. It wasn't self-selecting for people who feel strongly on the issue, it wasn't self-selecting for people who are likely to have different demographics from the general population, it wasn't a particularly small sample size, etc.)

As such, I'd say that 0.4% study is quite a bit more reliable both than the 0.3% oft-reported estimate and the 0.1% CA result. And unless you have some specific knowledge of bias in the way the BRFSS research was done, or knowledge of a study that was equally well-done but that reports a significantly lower proportion, 0.4% is the number I'm personally going to accept as reliable going forward. (It may even be an underestimate for the reasons described in that fivethirtyeight article, where some people feel like they were assigned the wrong gender even though they wouldn't necessarily identify themselves as transgender on any but the most carefully anonymous surveys.)
---
Edit: CorruptUser's number for intersex people is off by quite a bit as well. Even if we only count those individuals who do not have strictly XX or XY karyotypes, Wikipedia's figures put the total at 0.2%. People who are XX or XY but can be considered intersex for other reasons (such as hormone over- or underproduction or insensitivity) seem to be less common, but raise the percentage slightly nonetheless. Even if there is considerable overlap between such people and those who identify as transgender, an estimate of at least 0.5% of people who can't be unambiguously described as "male" or "female" seems reasonable.

Nothing like the "majority" 12obin claims, but considerably more than HungryHobo's 0.1%.

(And I'm not at all sure why doogly thinks tenths-of-a-percent accuracy is unobtainable, when that works out to several dozen people in a large survey or up to several thousand in an analysis of hospital records.)
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby HungryHobo » Thu Nov 20, 2014 10:52 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Nothing like the "majority" 12obin claims, but considerably more than HungryHobo's 0.1%.

Thanks for digging into that.
Sounds reasonable, in that case I'll go with the higher number.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Nov 20, 2014 8:40 pm UTC

Does the incidence rate of .1% or .3% or whatever have any real implications? I'm not seeing any significant difference that it should make to the preceding arguments or what not...and it seems that precise definition and social attitudes would definitely affect reported numbers anyway, so...am I missing something here, or what's the importance of this ball of wax?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26822
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Nov 20, 2014 9:08 pm UTC

Are we not allowed to go off on tangential discussions from time to time?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Nov 20, 2014 9:59 pm UTC

I'm not fussed about it being off topic or whatever(Surely, I've followed side conversations plenty), I'm just not seeing the why of this particular topic. Not merely to feminism, but for anything.

HungryHobo
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:01 am UTC

Re: Radical Feminism

Postby HungryHobo » Fri Nov 21, 2014 11:11 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote: Not merely to feminism, but for anything.


Curiosity.
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish. Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests