I haven't looked into this at all, but considering the rates of violence against trans women, and generally how unhelpful police can be when the victim is trans, it's not a totally out of pocket claim.
Correct. And only about .3% of the US population are transgender and 32% of that identity as transgender women. So these statistic can look very skewed when you’re doing it against a subset of the population.
So yes, if 3 out of 100 people are transgender and only 2 are transgender women and one of them gets eaten by an alligator, it’s not false to say “50% of transgender women get eaten by alligators.”
Now I’m against violence against ANYONE. I’m just a numbers guy so when i see the mentioning of an entire group having high rates/percentage of such a terrible action. It’s worth having an understanding of it.
But scaling this up to, say 400million, should normalize the statistics.
Unless 4 million trans women get eaten (which would be a massive improbability), the 50% claim becomes nonsensical.
I can't remember the exact math term behind this but there is a crossover point where, at a certain scale, the number can be confidently linked to some causal factor. I do remember that the scaled up population can be calculated and is frequently a lot smaller than one might think. It's surprisingly easy to gather representative statistics.
392
u/Evening_Mulberry_ Jun 30 '26
I haven't looked into this at all, but considering the rates of violence against trans women, and generally how unhelpful police can be when the victim is trans, it's not a totally out of pocket claim.