squareallworthy:voxette-vk:corpus-vak:voxette-vk:femboy-lesbian:femboy-lesbian:this is not an indict
squareallworthy:voxette-vk:corpus-vak:voxette-vk:femboy-lesbian:femboy-lesbian:this is not an indictment on his person and certainly nitpicky but one thing I just noticed about the Elliot page coming out announcement that annoys me is the frequency with which gringos, including a lot of people on this site, employ the “40 trans people died this year” statistic with no additional context on what country the data comes from, which inadvertently minimizes the higher rates of violence trans people face in the rest of the world by making US data seem like a global tally. like in this particular case it makes even less sense to quote that statistic considering it doesn’t apply to the place he currently resides init’s part of the larger issue of lgbt news outlets presenting themselves as international publications that represent the “community” in all parts of the world while remaining incredibily US-centric in their coverage of gay issues that aren’t celebrity gossip, specially when it comes to more critical issues. in 2019 there were 9x more deaths in South/Central America than North America, yet the headline you’ve likely memorized is that “30 trans people died in 2019″, as it was shared by a large number of people of various nationalities, on this and other platforms after being reported by theadvocate and pinknews (a UK based publication) based on HRC data for the US, surprisingly little attention was paid to other regions: the actual number is closer to 330, 258 of which were in South/Central America, with 130 in Brasil alone, so it strikes me as virtue signalling when the discussion disproportionately focuses on the rate of violence in a country that is, by comparison, relatively safe for us, to make a statement about violence perpetrated against trans people globallyAlso, it’s just weird that you would cite 40 people like it’s a big number warranting special concern. Because even in the context of the US, it gives the opposite impression.40 / 18,830 (all U.S. homicides) ~= 0.2%Depending on where you want to get your data from, I imagine more than 0.2% of US people are trans, which implies they’re less at risk than the general population?It’s hard to estimate precisely, this says 0.0039%.So yeah, that illustrates the point. A 2x relative risk isn’t enormous as relative risks go, but that sounds a lot more persuasive!Not 0.0039%, but 0.39%.Extrapolating these results to 2016 suggested a current US population size of 390 adults per 100 000, or almost 1 million adults nationally.390/100000 = 0.0039 = 0.39%Oh duh, yes that’s what I meant (consistent with the relative risk point) but I forgot to divide by 100.Edit: Wait I had the relative risk backwards too. That’ll teach me from posting late at night! -- source link