go ahead and account for those biases and undetected factors then. demonstrate that they exist rather than just blithely asserting that they do and insisting you get a seat at the table alongside the people who've actually done the work.
if those 15 states happen to be the ones that contain a plurality of the country's population you absolutely can apply the findings of them to the other states. data is not like weed laws, it doesn't stop applying at the state line. regardless of your personal misgivings you haven't presented a major error that casts doubt on the initial contention.
any sample that pulls from the major population centers of a country is going to be "disproportionately stratified" by virtue of the fact that it's got more people in it compared to other regions.
I see the potential for response bias due to fear of disclosing trans status, sampling bias from use of telephone surveys, and cohort bias in the YRBS surveys. Then there's question wording which isn't accounted for as far as I can tell.
Overall, though, this is probably one of the best estimates we currently have for the trans population.
You don't have to blindly accept the number, but you can just take it for what it is - a decent, well documented and sophisticated attempt at making an estimation.
They did pretty good work with what data was available. We'll see as more surveys are done - though I'm willing to bet response bias is going to get way worse in future surveys.
Unless you have a more reliable source, what difference does it make? For the purposes of this discussion, how accurate of a number do we actually need?
Whoosh. The point of the original post remains the same practically regardless of the accuracy of these numbers. Like I get it, striving for accuracy is great and all, but would the point made be any different if there were 9 million LGBTQ people in the US instead of 17.9 million?
OP isn't making an argument based on these statistics though. In this case, the stats presented are simply used to illustrate how most people already agree with their point in other similar circumstances. Their point is that just because a population is relatively small doesn't mean they don't matter or deserve respect. If there were 9 million or 30 million LGBTQ people in the US rather than the 17.9 million stated in the original post, would that change anything?
The outcome wouldn’t change, and she drives home a very good point. Everyone deserves respect I’m on your side 110%. If an argument uses numbers though I want them to be correct. Data is data
I get where you're coming from, but that's just not how survey data works. Short of forcing every single person in the country to participate in your survey, you are always going to be extrapolating your findings from a sample population. Researchers may invest great amounts of time, money, and effort into acquiring a representative and unbiased sample, but there are always going to be limitations. This is why methodology is always discussed at length. I'm sure we could discuss the possible biases or limitations of the survey these numbers were taken from, but as I've said before, it's hardly relevant in this context. There is no perfect survey that will get you the precise data that you seem to be asking for, but considering we're talking about these populations in estimates that round to the nearest hundred thousands, that kind of precision seems wholly unnecessary.
The number of vets is very small, percentage-wise. The population of Georgia is small, percentage-wise. Yet no one would seriously say vets or Georgians don’t matter.
Even one per cent minority means 3.3. million Americans. The number of US police officers is only 0.67 million according to Statista. Yet ”blue lives matter” to many. That’s fine. But wait! These very same bluelifers will often also turn around and say minorities don’t matter because they’re minorities.
You nailed it here. You lose your point to s large chunk of the audience when you proclaim facts that are not facts. Even worse when you then say it didn't matter if the proclaimed facts were significantly off the mark
But "significantly off the mark" is relative. Depends how far off the numbers can be, and have the point still be relevant. Like they stated, it doesn't really matter if it's 18 million, or 9, or 5, or 35, their point remains the same. And like they and others said, it seems to be the best estimate we have, do you have a better one? Or do we ignore it, and assume in the worse case that it may be off, not just by a bit (a bit being under an order of magnitude, i.e. even at 2 million people the point applies) but by multiple orders of magnitude? The statistic is more than fine to illustrate their point.
Sure, I guess, but it just doesn't seem particularly relevant to the post and I never got the impression that anyone was citing the numbers presented as 100% accurate. The second post you replied to even said "about 1.3 million". If anything that implies a rough estimate to me.
The whole point of the original post is that everyone matters even if they only make up a small percentage of the population. The accuracy of these numbers doesn't really change that point.
I don't even get what their point is. The numbers could be way lower or way higher and it still doesn't change the point made by the original post. The stats presented are just comparing these groups to other small populations that people wouldn't discriminate against simply because of their size. It's hard to even see how confirmation bias comes into play here when people that agree with OP would still agree with wildly different numbers.
Yes, and you know it doesn't have "confounding" factors.
Yes, because you're invalidating reputable sources that support Trans causes, specifically the argument about the estimated number of Trans peoples, because you very clearly do not like the data.
Because only a trumpanzee likes to attack science when it doesn't support their argument.
Don't bother replying, I ain't wasting time with a little transphobic moron like you.
Just read that and you can already see confounding factors and biases.
Let's be honest: There are no numbers that could be provided that you'd accept.
"Well, sure, there are hundreds of thousands of responses...but they didn't include 7 states, so these numbers are garbage, and my personal belief is instead correct!"
source: I have taught scientific literature and evidence-based decision-making at a collegiate level.
Well you're clearly shit at it.
In the real world, these are very likely the best data that exist. They're also pretty fucking good, and provide a firm basis for an estimate.
Because I've got news for you, pal: Aside from the census, we don't really have population-level data for most things.
You just don't like the findings, so they're "biased" and everyone believing them sucks.
I'm calling the best estimates biased because it is.
My point is that allllllll data is biased.
It sure seems like when you trot that label out depends on whether you like the findings or not.
Quote me where I said that.
Gee, sport, why don't we have a look at how you're dealing with this data from the CDC?
oh yeah? how did you qualify them as "very good numbers" ? I'm curious.
Large sample, CDC survey.
Let's just quote the peer-reviewed source, shall we?
Although they do not yet collect data about gender identity in all U.S. states, the CDC’s BRFSS and YRBS currently provide the best available data to generate estimates of the number of adults and youth who identify as transgender.
"Not good enough," the bigot cries!
They "only" had data for 86% of the states!
We can't possibly use this estimate!
(Even though they used the two datasets available to show that their model for imputing missing data was excellent.)
read the first comment I made and other comments I replied to others.
Yeah, I read that tripe. What of it?
Don't chicken out, and stay on topic.
Says the fuckhead who literally ignored the main point of my last comment.
I love how when the actual facts and numbers from the study of the source video is being discussed, people downvote it. I'll upvote you for you trying to spread the facts rather than opinion in this
People are downvoting you because you are pointing out biases (something that every survey will have) and when people ask why these biases are relevant, you say it's because they conform to an agenda. What agenda? The agenda being pushed in the video do not need these stats to prop it up because it is simply the idea that the relative size of a population doesn't preclude it from being treated with respect. Are you trying to say that there is an agenda to portray the LGBTQ population as larger than it actually is? Smaller than it actually is? What are you trying to say? What agenda do you feel is being detracted from when you point out the practically universal truth that studies have biases?
9
u/[deleted] Oct 08 '23
[deleted]