Being a trans child of transphobic parents intuitively seems a specific flavor of high ACE score but I’m glad McKechnie et al. did the retrospective analysis. And this is in a country with socialized medicine!
title is some crazy unsubstantiated clickbait, and the article itself is a massive nothing burger. Basically, there are more trans people recorded in the poorer parts of the UK, and they generally have poorer mental health than cis people. Which is entirely unsurprising and unhelpful at this broad of an analysis.
To be clearer, the distinction I’m drawing is that the title implies causation when all the study is is a correlation. “There are more trans people in poorer areas” is not the same statement as “poor people are more likely to be trans.”
i wouldn't say it's entirely unhelpful at this broad of an analysis, because it is important to point out that this is a thing for people who might find it surprising. but i do see what you mean by "the title implies causation when all the study is is a correlation."
“There are more trans people in poorer areas” is not the same statement as “poor people are more likely to be trans.”
That’s not what the title says? “trans people more likely to come from poorer backgrounds” is the same statement as “There are more trans people in poorer areas” and it doesn’t imply causation at all.
That’s what it’s sneakily implying, though. The point is exactly to get people who glance at the headline to correlate poverty and transness and then go click on the article to examine this injustice. Then you’re meant to come in in the comments and say ‘hey, it didn’t say that’ as a gotcha that’s literally built into the article.
This isn’t news, it’s guerilla theater.
Reduced to its lowest common denominator the actual headline should be ‘poor people outnumber rich people’, but that wouldn’t get any clicks.
Yes, the title is implying a corrolation because that’s exactly what the study found. ‘poor people outnumber rich people’ wouldn’t be a good title because the article is specifically about trans people and omitting that doesn’t achieve anything, and is also wrong since the study is already adjusted for population. It doesn’t say there are more trans people in poorer areas, it says there are more trans people per 100 000 people in poorer areas.
I assume that many headlines are clickbait bullshit, because they are more often than not. You can point out that I’m wrong without being an ass about it.
I don’t understand why you’d jump to the assumption that they didn’t factor in such an obvious thing, especially since the researcher already lists possible explanations for the discrepency in the article:
“We do not know why more individuals from deprived areas had a transgender code in their records, and if this really means that there are more transgender people in those areas, or if they are simply more likely to be recorded as such in the NHS GP [general practitioner] records. Transgender people face stigma and discrimination in society, potentially leading to exclusion from employment, education and family support, which might make them more likely to move to deprived areas. Some areas might also be more ‘trans friendly’ than others. Another possibility is that transgender people in affluent areas were more likely to access specialist gender care privately, bypassing their GP and the long NHS gender clinic waiting list entirely.”
Well, that’s the thing. I didn’t jump to that conclusion. I can see how the way I worded it may make it seem that way though.
And that passage is part of my point. The title makes it seem like being poor will make you more likely to be trans, while the study itself in fact says the opposite. That there are a number of different explanations for their observations, and that one shouldn’t draw the conclusion that being poor makes you trans. The title of the article is clickbait at best, and intentionally misleading at worst.
I'd been thinking the title meant trans people are more likely to be poor. And because I'd recently seen a meme about right-wingers blaming LGBTQ people for things, thought this was a good article some of those right-wingers might need to see. Like, look, you can't blame trans people for your problems because they're also likely to be poor. But I might be assuming a lot about how things might be interpreted here, because I did not expect all this, lol.
Not sure how old you are or how jaded by society you are just yet, but conservatives don’t come to their positions from facts and logic. They hold their positions because conservative media has fanned their fear of the unknown. Conservatives are deeply emotional, and aren’t going to be convinced by any kind of studies or data to renounce their positions.
To provide an example, the infamous 41% statistic was referenced in this study. 41% referring to the stat that 41% of trans people have contemplated suicide ever. Conservatives don’t take this stat as an indicator that “hey things are kinda fucked up. we should be nicer to trans people!”, they take it to mean that “all trans people are mentally ill psychos and shouldn’t be allowed to make decisions for themselves or exist. You can’t be mentally ill if you’re not trans and this stat proves it!”
OP, your heart might have been in the right place, but my opinion is that it’s pointless to try to convince conservatives that they’re wrong.
Damn, I see what you're saying now. I'm almost 30 and I'd say I'm jaded lol but being on the autism spectrum/general brainweirdness means I don't interpret the world the way most people do and need some help understanding what normal people see. What I would think is common sense or logical or even easy to understand is just not most people's experience, and vice versa-- what others think are obvious (in social situations especially) don't even occur to me until someone points it out. I find things out the hard way most of the time. Thanks for clearing things up.
Add comment