thomblake comments on 2012 Survey Results - Less Wrong

80 Post author: Yvain 07 December 2012 09:04PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (640)
Tags: survey meta community

Comments (640)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: thomblake 29 November 2012 09:07:21PM 2 points [-]

3 vs 16 seems like quite a difference, even allowing for the small sample size. Is this consistent with the larger population?

As I understand it, there isn't good data. Stereotypically, there are more MtF than FtM. But according to Wikipedia, a Swedish study found a ratio of 1.4:1 in favor of MtF for those requesting sexual reassignment surgery, and 1:1 for those going through with it. Of course, this is the sort of Internet community where I'd expect some folks to identify as trans without wanting to go through surgery at all.

Comment author: gwern 29 November 2012 09:23:18PM *  10 points [-]

After I posted my comment, I realized that 3 vs 16 might just reflect the overall gender ratio of LW: if there's no connection between that stuff and finding LW interesting (a claim which may or may not be surprising depending on your background theories and beliefs), then 3 vs 16 might be a smaller version of the larger gender sample of 120 vs 1057. The respective decimals are 0.1875 and 0.1135, which is not dramatic-looking. The statistics for whether membership differs between the two pairs:

R> M <- as.table(rbind(c(120, 1057), c(3,16)))
R> dimnames(M) <- list(status=c("c","t"), gender=c("M","F"))
R> M
gender
status M F
c 120 1057
t 3 16
R> chisq.test(M, simulate.p.value = TRUE, B = 20000000)
Pearson's Chi-squared test with simulated p-value (based on 2e+07 replicates)
data: M X-squared = 0.6342, df = NA, p-value = 0.4346

(So it's not even close to the usual significance level. As intuitively makes sense: remove or add one person in the right category, and the ratio changes a fair bit.)

Comment author: thomblake 29 November 2012 09:35:39PM 8 points [-]

After I posted my comment, I realized that 3 vs 16 might just reflect the overall gender ratio of LW

Now I feel dumb for not even noticing that. "In a group where most people were born males, why is it the case that most trans people were born males?" doesn't even seem like a question.

Comment author: [deleted] 11 January 2014 11:03:40AM 1 point [-]

That sounds like hindsight bias. If there were 16 trans men and 3 trans women, you'd be saying ‘"In a group where most people currently identify as men, why is it the case that most trans people currently identify as men?" doesn't even seem like a question.’

Comment author: VAuroch 12 January 2014 01:41:44AM -1 points [-]

I can attest that this reasoning occurred to me knowing only that there were 1.3% trans women; my prediction was 'based on my experience with trans people, this probably reflects upbringing-assigned gender, so I expect to see fewer trans men'.

Comment author: DaFranker 29 November 2012 09:51:34PM 0 points [-]

Haha, that's a great way to look at it. Had skipped over this myself too!

Now it makes me wonder which would be more significant between this and the apparent prominence of M->F over F->M that I just read some stats about (if the stats are true/reliable, 0.7 conf there).

Comment author: thomblake 29 November 2012 09:58:02PM 0 points [-]

I just read some stats about

link?

Comment author: DaFranker 29 November 2012 10:09:15PM 1 point [-]

Oh, heh, sorry.

I mentioned them in a different subthread around here. The linked PDF has a few fun numbers, but didn't notice any obvious dates or timelines. The main website hosting it has a bit more data and references from what little I looked into.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit