Mal

posted December 31st, 2014, 2:01 am


average rating: None
post a comment
author comments
view GreenKrog's profile

January 21st, 2014, 8:38 pm

GreenKrog

reply

Tee hee, Annie let her voice slip during her fangirlism!

Then again, so did Malcom, right?

I didn't really intend to add in a FtM character, but I think this worked out really well. At some point I knew I had to have Annie meet at least one other transperson, I just didn't know how to get there. Now I do! Dunno how permanent Mal will be in her daily life.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22095354
Considering the proclivity (from some studies) of a rate of 1:200 for transgenderism, lets put in the amount of people who feel strongly enough to actually transition at 1:500. Consider that Calgary went from 988,000 people in 2006 to 1,096,000 in 2011. Lets split the difference and go with 1,042,500. Divide that by 500, and you get roughly 2085 (transitioning or transitioned) trans people in the city of Calgary in 2009.
The population is split nearly evenly for each sex, and the population distribution puts people from the age of 0-20 at 13%. Consider the drop off of 0-10 (6.5%) and the decline in average age from the median 0.65% per age group to roughly 0.55, you get 5.5% of people in Calgary being between the ages of 10-20 in the year 2009. The resulting amount of trans* people in between 10-20 in Calgary in 2009? 114.

Anyways, just thought you might enjoy some math. It could still be very wrong, as there is a lot of nebulousness when it comes to what it means to be statistically transgender. You can see the old math below from the more oft quoted study and how it lines up differently. The original math shows about 1.8 trans people between 10-20, this study shows a difference of 114 trans people of the same age range. Clearly, more research needs to be done if we are going to get the support we need from our governments - but this is a pretty good step up.

----
----
This is the old math. 4C51 has provided better evidence than the study I had used, so I have redone the math above.
---
Considering the proclivity (from some studies) of a rate of 1:32000 for transgenderism, consider that Calgary went from 988,000 people in 2006 to 1,096,000 in 2011. Lets split the difference and go with 1,042,500. Divide that by 32000, and you get roughly 33 trans people in the city of Calgary in 2009.
The population is split nearly evenly for each sex, and the population distribution puts people from the age of 0-20 at 13%. Consider the drop off of 0-10 (6.5%) and the decline in average age from the median 0.65% per age group to roughly 0.55, you get 5.5% of people in Calgary being between the ages of 10-20 in the year 2009. The resulting amount of trans* people in between 10-20 in Calgary in 2009? 1.8.

Anyways, just thought you might enjoy some math. Don't get me wrong here, the 32,000 figure is from a study done quite some time ago and was based off of a population vs application for gender therapy, so the prevelance is actually likely to be much higher (for all those too scared, or too stubborn, to be themselves). If we were to say that for every one person in the closet, there are 10 too scared (or worse, the 42% suicide rate of trans people) the 6 people too scared, this still only gives us 14 trans people between 10-20 in Calgary in 2009. The chances of Annie running into anyone? Yeah. Nope.

end of message
user comments

December 31st, 2014, 5:27 am

dew (Guest)

reply

Yay~
*victory party*

Found him!

You said once we'd meet someone along the lines of ftm/genderqueer once.

Dude, just get on T. No surgery and it gets rid of that issue after a bit.

end of message

December 31st, 2014, 10:48 am

cam94509 (Guest)

Medical prevalence studies tend to underestimate our populations by a factor of 100 or so.

reply

Studies that ask different questions often get numbers like "2.2%" or ".7%" (Although, these studies ask questions that would likely draw a lot of false positives, and they're Taiwan's numbers, not the United States or Canada's numbers). I want to say that one study that merely asked a (n America) highschool population "do you identify as trasngender" was as high as 1%. These numbers seem high to me, as they imply that roughly only in 5 of us is out at this point (I'd say my personal experiences with trans communities say that in Washington State in the community side of the CTC system (the techincal colleges are different) a much, much higher number than your study is out as trans.) One researcher said that he believed the number was "probably 1:300", which sounds about right to me.

Now, I have NO IDEA what the environment in Calgary is like. Moreover, even at 1:300, unless the population is actively pulling together, they're unlikely to run into one another more than a couple times a year; not that often.

And, of course, it's really up to you what story your telling. 2009 was a very different time than even 2014; a lot of my friends came out in 2012ish, and I came out to myself in 2010ish, and myself in 2012ish, and the outness of trans people, as I said, varies WILDLY based on how safe we think we are.

end of message

December 31st, 2014, 11:37 am

Erin (Guest)

Shiny

reply

@cam94509: Yeah, I would have to say that this seems about accurate. I know that I have run into other trans people at the store randomly, and I live in a super conservative part of town. Which is entirely anecdotal, but the 1:300 number seems about right to me given my experiance. Especially because at my college of 30,000 students there are already about 20 odd out trans people I personally know and have met.

end of message
view GreenKrog's profile

December 31st, 2014, 12:20 pm

GreenKrog

reply

@cam94509: I'm sorry, but just no. We can't throw around random numbers based on small sample sizes or personal conjecture to satisfy what we want to have as a higher level of identification. As I said, I am more than willing to inflate my numbers by a factor of 10. This to me seems off the charts high.

What everyone is confusing themselves with is the proclivity of the modern generation to A) be special snowflakes, and B) take anecdotal evidence as gospel. Your friend came out to you because you existed and were there to come out to. I happen to exist and have a lot of trans folk near me because I work in environments where I find them.

This is akin to saying that the general populace is good at engineering because you are in a course in university for engineering. Well, YEAH, the people around you will know engineering at a high rate - that is a pretty poor sample size.

Look, when it comes to unreported statistics, we might as well not even do it. Everyone who has read WF knows straight out how I feel about rape. But what a lot of people probably don't know is how much more strongly I feel about statistical accuracy. The 1 (or 2, or 3) in 5 rape stat is so grossly and disgustingly inflated as to be insulting to those that it actually happened to. As an example, the study that the 2:5 stat came from states 'were you kissed without being asked for consent' as rape. What are the parameters of the 2.2% study for transgenderism? A sense of sometimes not being 100% binary? A sense of actually wanting to DO something about it? Maybe I am just overprotective of my sense of identity. But I do not count a stolen kiss as rape and I don't count that time a guy shaved his legs as a prank and it felt nice as transgenderism.

I need hard data with well defined parameters. I need science.
We won't win the battle with the pyschological and medical communities through hyperbole. We win through data.

Anecdotally, I live in Vancouver, one of the highest reported and treated rates of 'textbook' transgenderism in the world. I have inserted myself into the community as best I could to make a difference. In a city of 3 million - if there was even 1:509 trans people, I would know. But hey, maybe that's just me and knowing the psychs, TG coordinators for support groups, running the facebook group, stalking reddit, going to the call for action groups, and generally getting as much info as I can.

@Erin (Guest): See above. Additionally, I am fully ready to change my opinion when presented with more hard data.

end of message

December 31st, 2014, 4:10 pm

Siva (Guest)

leg-crossing

reply

In point of fact, ladies aren't supposed to cross at the knee, but at the ankle. Something about skirts potentially showing undies?

tl;dr: Annie's mom is more ignorant than I previously thought.

end of message
view GreenKrog's profile

December 31st, 2014, 4:19 pm

GreenKrog

reply

@Siva: I always kinda wondered that! But then, I have giant fat thighs (mostly muscle, actually.. biking!) that I can't cross in a ladylike fashion. The entire thing always seemed to me like a poor idea anyways.

You didn't think Annie's mom was this ignorant? She slapped Tony in the hospital when Annie was stabbed and almost died!

end of message

December 31st, 2014, 4:57 pm

cam94509 (Guest)

I understand how you FEEL, Greekrog

reply

The issue is that the data really doesn't back you up. Time and time again, when we ask people "do you identify as transgender", we find that between 1 in 500 and 1 in 100 people identify as trans. Yes, if we take numbers for "how many Americans in the United States are getting operations in the United States using very specific methods", we find numbers like 1:10k (1:30k is like 40 years old at this point, so that was, remember, going to be straight trans women who fit a VERY VERY SPECIFIC MOLD), but fundamentally, surgery 1) expensive 2) not everyone, not even all binary trans people, wants surgery 3) not always a thing that trans people get in their country of origin.

This is one of those things that matters, GK. We can't let ourselves get into an "I'm really trans and you're not" Oppression Olympics, it doesn't really benefit any of us, and it winds up putting our movement in the hands of those who already have phenomenal privilege.

The problem is that your "10fold inflation" (which is about a three fold inflation of very specific surgical numbers in the modern world) is an underestimate of what I can tell you about OUT TRANSGENDER PEOPLE WHO I KNOW at my college, and that's sample size 33k.

I understand that's not a formal survey, but again, we already know what formal surveys that ask reasonable questions get.

Also, the 2.2% study was more a matter of "Depending on how we phrase our questions, we get anywhere from" 1:500ish on the low end to 2.2% if we ask the broadest questions ("Do you often wish you were born the other sex", which fails to register the "and not because of sexism.")

"But hey, maybe that's just me and knowing the psychs, TG coordinators for support groups, running the facebook group, stalking reddit, going to the call for action groups, and generally getting as much info as I can."

So, we have basically the same experiences, except count me in for "paid activist" as well?

I understand that it's easy to blame this on "special snowflakes", but that's kind of a cop-out. After all, at the end of the day, we can all be accused of being "special snowflakes".

end of message
view GreenKrog's profile

December 31st, 2014, 5:25 pm

GreenKrog

reply

@cam94509: All I want is a properly defined study that has set parameters that are measurable and quantifiable. Conjecture has no place in science - be it hard science or sociology.
I stated very earnestly that my figures were way out of date because we know that the models have changed since then, but I have yet to see a non-biased, independently corroborated study that shows another number. If you would care to present these to me, I will happily shut up, re-run my numbers in the original post, and put it to bed.
To be clear, as I try to be when approaching things scientifically, I will make what I am looking for iron-clad, so that the goalposts cannot be moved. What I want is a study that did not come from a place with a gender-specific curriculum (the gender institute, for example) and has no vested interest in the outcome. I want a clearly defined set of questions and the corresponding data that does not have a conclusion foisted from it but instead presented so we may draw our own conclusions.
...actually, I think all of Reddit would like that information.

I don't play the "I'm really trans" game, nobody wins when we do that. But I do play the "rigorous definition of what we are talking about so we can carry on a proper conversation" game, because then everyone wins. You want to win against the people who are trying to oppress us? Then play THAT game. There are some well educated hatemongers out there who will move any goalpost they can to win any argument they can, and wishy washy 'well, it depends how you define it, or who you ask' doesn't pass things in to law. It gives them more ammo on how to beat us - oh, well, THEY can't even figure it out amongst themselves!

The original study done I believe was in reference to the application for surgery, not the completed procedures. An important distinction, as one implies the standards of those who fit into the model and have been approved by the (since changed) cis-het controlled idealization of the woman into that of the application by those who self identify. I hope you can understand why this is a relevant difference.

Please link to me the 2.2% study and how the questions were phrased. Then look at it logically from how a person trying to pass laws will look at it. Not from how someone would emotionally approach it, but from how the people who are trying to systematically hold us back 'for our own good' approach it. THAT is why I am so insistent. I'm already done my transition, my surgery, my everything. I have no personal gain. I only have the greater good to look at now, and I deal with a fucktonne of people who hate us and have better conjecture spinning than we do.

I do not have any desire to blame special snowflakes, though the more and more I read from the media on the people getting attention really does bother me. InternetAristocrat, despite being a massive douche, makes a lot of very good points on how people equate things with each other. I recommend the headmates video from his Tumblrisms series. It demonstrates clearly how so many people are jumping on the bandwagon of things without actually being a part of it it, and then dragging the real issues down. Same reason why I have such issue with the rape statistics and how incredibly damaging it is to people who are raped. Same reason I have issue with people who claim to be celiac but are really just wasting everyone's time. Same reason why I take premise with people who claim fucked up bipolar freaks like me cut to get attention when nobody had a CLUE until I was already dead.
No, I don't want to cop out on special snowflakes. But our enemies sure do.

end of message

January 2nd, 2015, 2:24 am

Lindt (Guest)

FIREFLYYY

reply

THANK YOU FOR MENTIONING FIREFLY!<3 THAT'S ALL I HAD TO SAY ALSO YAY AFAB TRANS PEOPLE!

Sorry I'm just really obsessed with Firefly...

<|:D

end of message
view GreenKrog's profile

January 2nd, 2015, 2:32 am

GreenKrog

reply

@Lindt: I'm slightly terrified of you now.
:)

end of message

January 2nd, 2015, 5:12 pm

mittfh

reply

The lack of independent studies is only half the picture - the other half is determining who to count. Some trans* sites seem to advocate a very broad definition which appears to include anyone not 100% content with their assigned gender 100% of the time - which would include crossdressers and performance artists. They use a separate definition for transsexual, which seems to correlate with those who have a sufficiently high degree of gender dysphoria to want to transition.

Of course, for the purposes of a rigorous, scientifically valid study, any definition based on self-identification would have to be ruled out (at least partially because different people would interpret the question differently, there may also be a certain element of 'gaming' by answering the way the person thinks the questioner wants them to answer).

Medical definitions are likely to be more rigorous, but since it's likely there's a relatively small number of professionals qualified to diagnose / treat gender dysphoria (plus a bunch of others whom adopt the closed-minded position that it's "deviant" behaviour which can be fixed through behaviour correction), each professional is likely to cover a large area, so unless every professional within a given area was asked for (and supplied) their figures, you'd get at best a small and unrepresentative sample - certainly not something that could be extrapolated to a rate.

All that can really be said is that they're few and far between, and individuals are far more likely to encounter people in similar situtations in online support communities than in real life.

end of message
view GreenKrog's profile

January 2nd, 2015, 5:27 pm

GreenKrog

reply

@mittfh: Thats exactly what I have premise with. If the study clearly says 'what a person says they are', fine. If it is 'this person is pursuing or intends to pursue hormones', fine.
All I ask for is an exact definition and not random woo-woo. Same thing with rape statistics. Someone getting a kiss stolen is shitty, but is it RAPE? Maybe I just find it insulting, but, no, in my mind, it sure as fuck isn't. A drag queen who performs on the weekends and then spends the rest of their life happy as a clam as a dude and has no dysphoria? Again, maybe it is just me finding it insulting, but I am *not* a drag queen, and I will *not* accept that they are transgender just to conflate our numbers to make us look like an epidemic.

Perhaps this is an old-guard mentality. I was discussing this last night, and I am more than willing to admit - Jerry Springer and the terrible 'cross dressers are the same as trans people' in the media of my youth really fucked me up. But you want to know something else? Guess who makes the laws. Old (generally white, generally Christian) people who DONT know that drag queens and transgender people aren't the same thing. Call me a bigot - but between religion and being told relentlessly that the only way you could be trans is to be (I apologize for this) a "tranny"? THATS why I attempted to kill myself for the first time. You really think that Harper knows the difference between CD, DQ, and TG? Not a chance. And he is the fuck who is deciding that the people in my country can discriminate against us.

Ok.. deep breath. Sorry. It matters to me. I have absolutely zero problem with DQ and CD people - more power to them. But I am not them, and if someone says I am, I will get offended.

I don't disagree that small numbers are a substantial problem. Until we get proper representative numbers, we will not make any progress. We need a good, large scale, unbiased study done so we can put it out there and say "there. These are numbers. Deal with us". Until then, this nice big trans umbrella is going to stop us from getting proper government acceptance and access to what we need, because ya know what - drag queens don't need hormones. I do.

end of message

January 2nd, 2015, 5:46 pm

mittfh

reply

@GreenKrog: I also have problems with the concept of lumping such a broad range of people under the same umbrella. I can understand why some feel the need to have an umbrella term that includes those who have some gender variance but not dysphoria - but such a term shouldn't include the "trans" prefix (which biochemically would be inaccurate - "cis" and "trans" were probably derived from chemical isomers - opposites - so don't cover in-between positions). Ideally there'd be a tightening up of language, but when the media and pr0n industries continue to use and promote offensive terms such as "tranny", "she-male" or even "chix with dix" - and individuals / politicians are still rigidly attached to the binary concept of XY = boy for life, XX = girl for life, intersex = nearest binary phenotype for life, there's a long way to go.

Ridiculously broad definitions have also come into play recently with "sexual assault", which courtesy of the UK's Operation Yewtree (and associated investigations) appears to include unauthorised touching / feeling of almost any part of the body (including bottoms and knees). It doesn't help when the organisations advocating for the alleged victims (who cite incidents dating back to the 1960s and earlier) call themselves "survivors" and don't have confidence in inquiry if any member of the panel have any connections to the Establishment.

end of message

January 2nd, 2015, 10:03 pm

Siva (Guest)

I almost forgot!

reply

I wondered if the timing of this turn of events was done with any awareness of the teen girl who walked in front of a truck, after ensuring that Instagram would autopost her suicide note, which explained that she was biologically male, and when she came out as trans to her parents, she was put in the sort of place Annie is now in, and for five months she had no phone and no computer. I didn't personally read the article, but when I heard my sister's outrage over it, my first thought was this webcomic, and the events in it - and then discovered that Annie's in a place like this.

I really love this comic. I am not trans, but I STRONGLY want to support my friends and family, however they identify. I don't always succeed, but this comic has already helped!

<3 for all who see this.

end of message
view 4C51's profile

January 29th, 2015, 12:26 am

4C51

Survey

reply

This survey http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22095354 done in Massachusetts has the transgender population at 1:200

Method noted as: 'Between 2007 and 2009, survey participants aged 18 to 64 years in the Massachusetts Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (MA-BRFSS; N = 28 662) were asked: "Some people describe themselves as transgender when they experience a different gender identity from their sex at birth. For example, a person born into a male body, but who feels female or lives as a woman. Do you consider yourself to be transgender?" A more detailed definition of the term transgender was read to those who expressed confusion.'

It isn't definitive, but it does give more credence to the 1:100~1000 range.

end of message
view GreenKrog's profile

January 29th, 2015, 11:29 am

GreenKrog

reply

@4C51: Decent study, high sample size, illustrates without bias a 1:200 (0.5%) occurance.

Without a doubt the best piece of evidence I have seen to incidence rate in general populace. I will correct my initial statement and redo the math.

end of message
post a comment