"Exactly how common is transgenderism?" An Attempt to Place Statistics on this Demographic

So the first question is why would I want to do this... what benefit would it serve?

Well, I think there is a lot of discomfort on all sides of the transgender issue: the transgendered folk would like to be recognized and respected; a lot of folks feel that issues relating to alternative lifestyles and biological orientations are over-emphasized and discussed too often; still others feel that this is an issue that effects almost no one, and isn't worth talking about.

Are social issues like this brought up too often, and do they occupy too central a stage? I think so.

So why am I bringing it up now?

Well, I think it matters to a fair extent how many such individuals exist in society. If the number is minimal, the issue is important, but not really something that requires full time coverage as it is getting now. If on the other hand, it was 1 in 30, then a massive number of people have had their social needs and identities ignored. I think it is important to know which of these cases is closer to being true.

To be frank, I had to admit to myself that I didn't know if transgenderism affected one in 200,000 people, or one in 30, and I decided I did want to know.

The short story is it appears that something around 1 in 200 folks identify as transgendered in some way, however it takes quite a bit of reasoning to arrive at such a number from available statistics.

---------------------------

Snippets from an article and a university publication discussing the difficulties:

fivethirtyeight.com...

But counting the transgender population nationally remains a steep challenge. The U.S. Census Bureau doesn’t ask who is transgender,1 nor do the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But even if they did, the responses might not be reliable because some people are afraid to answer, while others disagree on what “transgender” even means.

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.

So the most responsible estimate would be to say that there is probably a low window number of 1 in 1000, and a high window of 1 in 100.
Expert demographers here are suggesting 1 in 300. I suspect the real number is just a bit higher, maybe 1 in 200, because of course some individuals will feel too stigmatized to respond that they identify as transgendered, and a large number of post-transition folks identify strongly as being their new gender, rather than being a transgendered person. As has been noted in this particular article, the phrasing of the question, the place the survey is being taken, and the knowledge of who has access to this data all definitely effect a person's willingness to answer truthfully. I know it would to me, in that situation.

ai.eecs.umich.edu...

There are many reasons for wanting to know the approximate prevalence of a developmental or medical condition. One important reason is that the prevalence of a condition determines the attention it receives by medical researchers, physicians, public health officials, social welfare workers and government bureaucrats. If a condition is presumed "extremely rare", then it gets very little attention at all. If is it known to be not uncommon, and if it has a very high impact on those affected (such as conditions like multiple sclerosis or deafness), then it gets taken much more seriously and more medical and social resources are applied to its correction.

In this article, we'll show that it is fairly easy to calculate approximate values of the prevalence of male-to-female (MtF) transsexualism. We first estimate the number of postop women in the U.S by accumulating the estimated numbers of sex reassignment surgeries (SRS) performed on U.S. citizens and residents decade by decade. We then divide that number by the number of adult males in the country. The result is a rough lower bound on postop prevalence, which we find to be about 1:2500. In other words, at least one or more in every 2500 adult males in the U.S. has had SRS and become a postop woman. The prevalence of untreated intense MtF transsexualism must be many times that number, and is perhaps on the order of 1:500.

When we compare this value with the one often quoted by "psychiatric authorities" in the U.S. (1:30,000), we discover that those authorities have persistently understated the prevalence of transsexualism by almost two orders of magnitude. This is such a incredible discrepancy that we must raise questions about why the psychiatric establishment (which has largely seized control of information provided about transsexualism to the media in the U.S.) has been so persistent in promulgating vastly understated values of the prevalence.

-----------------------

As stated, my interest here is mostly demographic. I want to know how many people are dealing with this social issue, so it can be gauged if the coverage, attention, and societal resources it is receiving are disproportionately large, about appropriate, or too small. Judging that is a different question entirely, but at least I think I have a ballpark figure in my head for how prevalent this situation is.

How does ATS feel about all of this?

This topic's 15 minutes of fame has run its course, and it lasted 14 minutes too long IMO.

It looks like a lot of work went into the statistical analysis of this, and you presented a well formatted post as well. But I really do think this is a non issue.

Tell you what, if an issue of this magnitude is the most of a person's worries......they should consider themselves lucky. They live a charmed life.

This topic's 15 minutes of fame has run its course, and it lasted 14 minutes too long IMO.

I agree. There is one particular transgendered individual I don't need to name that I would frankly like to stop hearing about.

But the issue at discussion here is one of prevalence, because it lets us understand what level of resources ought to be focused on the issue.

I think knowing that the issue affects 1 in 200 is heavily useful. It allows us to know that it is roughly an order of magnitude less common than homosexuality / lesbianism, but also around the same prevalence as the HIV infection rate (which is not to say this condition is a disease or undesirable, but happens to occur in near identical numbers), and is thus in a very rough way a social and medical issue of about the same magnitude.

originally posted by: joeraynor

I think knowing that the issue affects 1 in 200 is heavily useful. It allows us to know that it is roughly an order of magnitude less common than homosexuality / lesbianism, but also around the same prevalence as the HIV infection rate (which is not to say this condition is a disease or undesirable, but happens to occur in near identical numbers), and is thus in a very rough way a social and medical issue of about the same magnitude.

It should also be noted that:

Today, the CDC estimates that one in 150 8-year-olds in the U.S. has an autism spectrum disorder, or ASD.

- CDC

So about the same as the rate of childhood autism today.

And yet no one would say "the children born with autism issue affects so few people therefore it's talked about too much."

a reply to: JadeStar

So about the same as the rate of childhood autism today.

That is another great data point. It is useful I think to have reference points that people are familiar with and can relate to.

Transgender is a mighty broad spectrum of of different expressions.

Here is data from recent research compiled from Social Security and 2010 Census records on the likely number of post transition transgender people in this country

Likely Transgender Individuals in U.S. Federal Administrative Records and the 2010 Census

“This paper utilizes changes to individuals ’first names and sex-coding in files from the Social Security Administration (SSA) to identify people likely to be transgender. I first document trends in these transgender-consistent changes and compare them to trends in other types of changes to personal information. I find that transgender-consistent changes are present as early as 1936 and have grown with non-transgender consistent changes. Of the likely transgender individuals alive during 2010, the majority change their names but not their sex-coding. Of those who changed both their names and their sex-coding, most change both pieces of information concurrently, although over a quarter change their name first and their sex-coding 5-6 years later. Linking individuals to their 2010 Census responses shows my approach identifies more transgender members of racial and ethnic minority groups than other studies using, for example, anonymous on line surveys. Finally, states with the highest proportion of likely transgender residents have state-wide laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression. States with the lowest proportion do not.”

Source

This author, using both SSA and Census records, looking at name changes, not just SRS, says,“I am able to identify 135,367 individuals who are likely to be transgender. Of these, 89,667 were alive during the 2010 Census.”

An essay on this research entitled The New Math, appeared on Kay Brown's highly contentious blog, "On the Science of Changing Sex". Because of the nature of this site and controversial other research that Brown analyzes in her essays that some may find offensive, I will refrain from posting the link. U2U me is you really want it.

Ms. Brown does add her own commentary about this data and has this to say:

For the past 13 years, many news sources, including the New York times and GLAAD, have been quoting an erroneous figure of 700,000 transgender people in the United States, from a highly speculative paper by Lynn Conway....(courtesy edit). Here, we have solid numbers from the SSA and Census records, that show that there are perhaps 90,000 post social transition transgender people in the US today. Often taken by the press to indicate the number of post transition transgender people, the earlier conjectural estimate overstates the number by nearly ten fold. This lower figure also underscores the high anti-trans hate crimes and murders as a percentage of the transgender population.

Again, keep in mind these numbers are shown the number of trans* people that have transitioned and changed their names and Social Security records, not the total number of ALL transgender people.

Additionally, when the question of "how many" is asked, these related tidbits may be useful?

Mildly gender atypical child likely to “grow out of it” and be gay, lesbian or bisexual:
-- eight out of 100 births of both sexes.

Extremely gender atypical and dysphoric child likely to “desist” before puberty:
-- One in 10,000 births of both sexes.

Transgender Spectrum (may be transition or non-transition, cross-dresser , gender expansive or fluid, etc. Possible somatic feminization i.e. hormones, breast augmentation but not SRS:
-- two or three in 1,000 male births. Estimates go as high as three in 100 births for

In scientific literature and research, the term transsexual is usually reserved to indicate someone has completed all surgical procedures including genital sex reassignment surgery. In the European medical community a distinction is made between early onset and late onset transsexuals. There is naturally some age overlap.

For the "early onset" group, The median age of transition for MtF of this type is 20 years old, with a range of early puberty to mid 20’s. More than 90% transition full time before the age of 25 and it is unheard of to find one who transitions full time after age 30.

For the "late onset" group, the modal age for transition is 35 to 40 years old, the mean is between 40 to 45, with a range of early 20’s to very old age.

Other scientific names are used in this country where research indicates each type has a unique etiology but pointing out any difference is considered in very poor taste and highly offensive to some.

At any rate those divisions are broken out as follows:

☼ Late Onset MtF Transsexuals: One in 10,000 male births
☼ Early Onset MtF Transsexuals: Three in 100,000 male births
☼ Female to Male transsexuals are usually included two of their own unique groups but data is incomplete and research still underway. Occurrence is estimated to be similar to Early Onset MtF transsexuals: Three in 100,000 female births.

Let's just take your 1 in 1000 number as that's the lowest number, we have a world of 7.3 billion people, that's 7,300,000,000 people on this planet, you just called, 7,300,000 people insignificant.

If we go by your 1 in 300 number, then it's 24,333,333 people you just called insignificant.

If we go by your 1 in 100 number, then it's 73,000,000 people you just called insignificant.

a reply to: Puppylove

Let's just take your 1 in 1000 number as that's the lowest number, we have a world of 7.3 billion people, that's 7,300,000,000 people on this planet, you just called, 7,300,000 people insignificant.

If we go by your 1 in 300 number, then it's 24,333,333 people you just called insignificant.

If we go by your 1 in 100 number, then it's 73,000,000 people you just called insignificant.

I don't think we are on the same page here. I don't think these people are insignificant at all. I think their needs matter, and should be addressed by society, the same as any other demographic group.

What I am after here, is figuring out exactly how many of them there are, so we can gauge how much resources society should be investing in order to serve their needs in proportion to their numbers.

originally posted by: joeraynor
I don't think we are on the same page here. I don't think these people are insignificant at all. I think their needs matter, and should be addressed by society, the same as any other demographic group.

What I am after here, is figuring out exactly how many of them there are, so we can gauge how much resources society should be investing in order to serve their needs in proportion to their numbers.

That's a very dangerous way to apply funding. Let's say 1 million people suffer regularly from the common cold, and 1,000 people suffer from cancer. What you're saying would mean we should spend more money fighting the common cold than we should fighting cancer.

Your method looks only at population, while ignoring the severity of the problem, or those suffering from it.

a reply to: joeraynor

dont know how common it is.

i would rather know

how common is it for transgender people to whine and expect special treatment?
how common is it for the majority to have to change the way things have been done for like a million years cause of a very small minority?
how common is it for a transgender to get all bunged up and wish death on others(it happened in a thread yesterday) when someone says something the transgender does not like?

i am much more interested in those stats.

originally posted by: Mugly
a reply to: joeraynor

dont know how common it is.

i would rather know

how common is it for transgender people to whine and expect special treatment?
how common is it for the majority to have to change the way things have been done for like a million years cause of a very small minority?
how common is it for a transgender to get all bunged up and wish death on others(it happened in a thread yesterday) when someone says something the transgender does not like?

i am much more interested in those stats.

What about other stats, such as how many transgender are murdered by people who do not like them? Not just wished death upon?

How about stats on how many transgender murder people who do not like them, rather than just threatening them as a comparison to the first stat?

How about stats on all the things the majority has access to that transgender do not that for the majority is simply a given, for which they have no need to ask for a right to?

How about stats on all the times the majority has had to make these changes, while also including why they needed to make these changes. Also while doing this, let's not ignore that, if the majority did not actually support these changes they would never happen. Blacks would still be slaves or suffering from Jim Crow laws, if the majority did not in greater number stand with them.

If we transgender get equality it will be because the majority stands with us.

a reply to: Puppylove

if i cared about those stats i would have mentioned them.

you seem pretty cool but i have had not much interaction from you.

im tired of people like lila, the transgender person we talked about in yesterdays thread who asks for special treatment and when he/she gets it, refuses.
im tired of people like the transgender who asked for another member to die in that thread cause they didnt like what the member said.

the stats you mentioned do not concern me

a reply to: Mugly

We're all tired from a lot of frustrations. Like I get pissed when the majority are treated as the enemy, when no change could have occurred for the better without the support of the majority. Like any time blacks treat whitey as the enemy. It spits in the face of every white man burned as a "'n-word' lover" and every white man who died for black rights. It spits in the face of every white man who's ever fought and died for the rights of blacks.

I also get pissed when I see people from my demographic, I am transgender, who choose divisive rather than inclusive actions. I dislike hate speech such as the threats you mentioned.

That said, those threats do not represent all of us, and I'd much rather you do care about those things I mentioned, because they are important. That you not let those frustrating few skew your opinion on all of us. We're not all like that.

originally posted by: Puppylove

I also get pissed when I see people from my demographic, I am transgender, who choose divisive rather than inclusive actions. I dislike hate speech such as the threats you mentioned.

That said, those threats do not represent all of us, and I'd much rather you do care about those things I mentioned, because they are important. That you not let those frustrating few skew your opinion on all of us. We're not all like that.

as i said. you seem pretty cool.
lets be clear. i dont hate transgender people. its not even that i dislike them as an entire demographic.
i view all people the same.
what i do is assume that all people are assholes till i am shown different.
no matter the gender. no matter the skin color.

trust me, if i dont like a person, it is not cause their gender. its cause i think they are an ass

a reply to: Mugly

The problem is, the things you want to know about can only support your conclusion that all people are assholes. In fact it's specifically looking only for the worst things from the demographic, while showing no concern for the reasons for these negative traits. It's looking for reasons to not care. The statistics you're asking for are by their very nature biased towards painting any group of people as assholes.

Using such questions and ignoring all else I can make any group seem like the biggest dickheads in the world.

a reply to: Puppylove

That's a very dangerous way to apply funding. Let's say 1 million people suffer regularly from the common cold, and 1,000 people suffer from cancer. What you're saying would mean we should spend more money fighting the common cold than we should fighting cancer.

Your method looks only at population, while ignoring the severity of the problem, or those suffering from it.

That was stated nowhere in my posts, and I believe it was not implied either.

My statements were to the effect that understanding the numbers we are dealing with here will better serve society in allocating the proper amount of resources the affected individuals need. But I did not say it was the only thing we needed to know. Nor did I say it would be the only way that the proportion of this funding should be determined. But it is a starting point. Obviously, we also need to know what particular services such an individual needs access to, what percentage would opt for reassignment surgeries if given the opportunity, and what reasonable dollar values can be attached to each of these services and procedures.

I simply don't think the average American is aware how common or uncommon transgenderism is. No one gets offended that buildings or public spaces are designed around people with mobility handicaps (wheelchairs, etc). This is because the public recognizes that while these individuals are rare, they do make up an appreciable percentage of the population, are bound to occur in system, and their needs should be served.

My argument here is mainly that if people are aware of precisely how common this situation is, they will be aware that it is natural that society should have the expectation of needing to meet their needs as they arise, and won't think of them as aberrants, or people that are taking resources for petty resources, which I don't believe them to be.

a reply to: joeraynor

Ok that I can agree with. That is however separate from the amount of resources. That's more about clarity than it is resource allocation.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Mugly

The problem is, the things you want to know about can only support your conclusion that all people are assholes. In fact it's specifically looking only for the worst things from the demographic, while showing no concern for the reasons for these negative traits. It's looking for reasons to not care. The statistics you're asking for are by their very nature biased towards painting any group of people as assholes.

Using such questions and ignoring all else I can make any group seem like the biggest dickheads in the world.

i dont care about the stats i mentioned either
i was being an asshole that time

a reply to: Mugly

Not too surprising. I, however, am the opposite of you, I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt, rather than assume they're assholes straight up.

If I'm wrong, and they prove otherwise, it's they who have wronged me.

If I'm right, no one is wronged and cumbaya.

If I assume the worst from everyone, I will see everything they do in the worst light, and probably wrong them by accusing and assuming falsely. At which point, they'll get all that from me, and like a self fulfilling prophecy I will have made them into the asshole I thought they were by being the asshole first.

If you live in a world where people need to fight against your bias to not be considered an asshole, then, most won't bother and will just accept you want them to be an asshole.

It's a mentality I never understood.

originally posted by: Puppylove
That's a very dangerous way to apply funding. Let's say 1 million people suffer regularly from the common cold, and 1,000 people suffer from cancer. What you're saying would mean we should spend more money fighting the common cold than we should fighting cancer.

Your method looks only at population, while ignoring the severity of the problem, or those suffering from it.

Then, in the case of this transgender issue, zero public dollars should be spent because it in no way threatens the life of those, to use your own words, "suffering from it." It's not cancer, it's not life threatening, it's an area of convenience and should be treated in the same manner the system treats any other elective cosmetic surgery.