Collection · 6 entries

The Numbers That Get Misquoted

Six entries whose figures are repeated constantly and almost always without the sentence that makes them mean anything. Intersex is the widest case: the same organisation gives about 1.7 per cent of births and about 0.05 per cent, thirty times apart, because one counts every variation of sex development and the other counts genital differences apparent at birth. Both circulate as the prevalence of intersex.

Neutrois carries the most useful figure on this site and it is not about neutrois. The Gender Census recorded it at 2.6 per cent when it appeared as a checkbox in 2021 and about 0.4 per cent when it had to be written in the following year. Nothing about the population changed. The question did, and that same effect sits under every community percentage quoted anywhere here. The rest of the set shows the other standard error, which is treating a community sample as a population estimate: Transgender and Non-binary each have one of each kind of number, differing by orders of magnitude, and they are quoted interchangeably in news coverage. The set is ordered by how badly the figure is usually mangled. It excludes the culture-specific entries, whose counting problems are real but different, being census undercounts and community estimates rather than survey artefacts, and it excludes any entry where no number has been published at all.

Plate for the collection

Hand-set, never alphabetical

The set, in order

6 entries

Keep going

The other collections

See all 8 collections