Little bump here, only 53 replies so far, WTF? Susan's clearly has more TGs than that. Cmon, what's the harm. It's all completely anonymous if you wish, just don't leave a comment!
By the number of miffed comments, I realize that some took my non-inclusive approach personally. Let me explain! I'm thinking that root cause(s) of transgender occurrence may have a demographic explanation. What piqued my curiosity is the prevalence of members from Oklahoma. I see no reason why Oklahoma should be top heavy in TG presence, but I still remember the weird red earth of OK(high iron content)! (No offense fellow Okies, I left there when I was 4 and have never seen earth like that since.) I only needed a significant sampling of demographics but they need some consistent background features to reduce the variables being compared, and some limit on geographical sizing to give significant banding of the results.
So far, the results are too limited to find much significance in the numbers. California is leading but that's not surprising by the size of the California population and Cali's progressive attitude regarding transgender. Virginia and Wisconsin are surprises with leads that have no readily explainable features, but the overall sampling is too small for much statistical significance to the results so far.
