Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Wow, it's hard to believe that I've only been on this site for a little over two months - seems like ages. 

And while I tend to joke and make idiotic comments every now and then, I have found information helpful and communicating with you all has helped me to come to terms with Cassi.

That said, I have begun to wonder how many of us there are, transgender MTF or FTM.  For so long I was locked in the visual image of transsexual beings and the image of porn stars and that kept me from accepting who I was.  Thankfully, I found this site and that helped me more than I could ever seriously express.

Hugs

Cassi

I wonder the same thing and if we'll ever really know.. and that's really interesting about the porn part. Honestly trans people in porn helped with my gender dysphoria at times because it showed me a trans woman can be seen as a woman in that way. I know that's obvious but it's just something that's crossed my mind

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

I've never been interested in guys and seriously don't believe I ever will so most of the action portrayed by porn stars was more a turn-off than a turn-on.

When I went to get my gender disorder diagnosis, I made the comment to the doctor that I was a lesbian and believed my transistion (can never remember how to speel that word, lol.) was at my comfort level.  Earlier today, my daughter's girlfriend was talking to me via video phone chat and asked how far I was going to go being diabetic and I replied that what I was doing now was a slow process and we'd see.  The issue of healing is a factor but not one that has to be dealt with immediately.

I have however, become to see that people like us are far more than what may generally be believed.

     Hi Cassi.  I think there are quite a few like us out there.  The US is a difficult place to be trans, though, and I think there are plenty who will never be open as long as were ostracized like we are.  I'm about to wrap up my Thailand transition trip and I can tell you I have seen, and briefly talked to, many trans people here. This society just doesn't care and so there is no reason to hide.  My fear Stateside is that numbers are very much greater than reported, but until our society starts to accept, we'll just never know.  And due to their own political agenda, the Government will never publish data that would let the public know how common we are.  Toni

That depends on whether you count those who do things considered trans or just those who have admitted they're trans.

With the US population at 330 million people and the best estimates at 1.5 % of all people being trans, my estimate is that there are about 5 million people in the US who have transgender issues of one sort or another.

Hi
So that's about 1 Million in the UK. Put into smaller terms, In my large open office of 300 people there would be 4 1/2 trans and there is actually only one that people see. So maybe 70-80% of people aren't visible. (Very broad terms there and makes huge assumptions..)
Another inaccurate calculation here;
My Doctors surgery  that covers 10,000 people are assisting 5 to transition in the village (or on long term meds, info from a friend who is also transitioning in the area), so that would be 5 from approx.  150 that are actively presenting, +95% not visible to them, or are self med / private support / suffering quietly without sorting themselves out.
Whatever way there will be a lot who aren't visible.
Working the other way maybe the occurrence is 5/10000 which is 0.05% are transitioning..
Katie
(sorry for all the bad assumptions here)

Hugz

:angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel: >:-) :angel: :angel: :angel: :angel:

I think it will be hard to ever know just how many of us there are. There are all the people who maybe don't know they are yet, or who no longer identify as trans* because they have fully transitioned, or who don't feel comfortable coming out.

Quote1/2 trans

That could be awkward!   ;)

We will probably never know as so many of us never come out and hide but hopefully less so today.

We are a rapidly increasing sector I believe both in UK and US.

I have seen estimates of 0.6%, 1% & 1.5%.

Without evidence I would guess more than that perhaps 2% which is  1.3M in UK & 6.6M in US.

Pamela

Quote from: AnneK on March 01, 2018, 10:07:44 AM
That could be awkward!   ;)

LOL, Ouch

Thanks to everyone for their input.  It just seems to me, or maybe been spending too much time on this site, that there's been an open (to us) increase.  Curiosity has gotten me and the cat :)

I think it's just greater visibility.  Part of that is media and the only  positive thing I'll say about Caitlyn Jenner.  A bigger part,  I think, is that parents now have the resources to help trans kids.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Quote from: Cassi on February 28, 2018, 11:45:12 PMThat said, I have begun to wonder how many of us there are . . .

          Well, since you registered just two months ago there have been another 1,050 members signed up so what's that tell ya? This place never ceases to AMAZE me is one of the busiest places I've ever known.

How many trans could a trans trans trans if a trans could trans trans trans? That is hard to make work.

Anywho, I think figuring out the numbers is a bit of a lost cause for the moment. There are just so many factors at play. There are two big ones that stand out above the rest though, the more contentious issue being: what counts as trans? Is it explicitly those who transition or desire to transition from assigned sex? Is it anyone non conforming regardless of transition or identity? Do you base it on identity, action? Is it established by a standard, or entirely self identification? (Ie: If you transition into a woman, but don't believe yourself to be trans, at least not anymore, are you still counted?) Etc, etc, etc. Then even if you do establish that, the big question is then, how do you count a population that in large part actively seeks to be invisible?

Honestly, I feel as though the 1.5% numbers are on the high side, or perhaps suffer from a not clearly defined level of inclusiveness (ie: many people think the number represents transsexuals as a cliche of what it means to be trans, when it is more likely an estimate for people who are anywhere in the transgender umbrella).

<cue broken record sound>

I've heard, and believe, that 1 in 20 men crossdresses. That's 2.5% right there. The numbers thrown around are unquestionably low.

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on March 01, 2018, 01:57:34 PM
<cue broken record sound>

I've heard, and believe, that 1 in 20 men crossdresses. That's 2.5% right there. The numbers thrown around are unquestionably low.

I agree Devlyn that there are more, and Kiera's comment on how many have joined in just two months is telling.  I can attest to just yesterday welcoming 15.  There are many more becoming aware each and every day.

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on March 01, 2018, 01:57:34 PM
<cue broken record sound>

I've heard, and believe, that 1 in 20 men crossdresses. That's 2.5% right there. The numbers thrown around are unquestionably low.

Then we have to determine what's considered or defined as cross-dressing?  Kilts? etc?

Not really.  I think we just need to acknowledge that the numbers are bigger than we thought.  :)

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on March 01, 2018, 01:57:34 PM
<cue broken record sound>

I've heard, and believe, that 1 in 20 men crossdresses. That's 2.5% right there. The numbers thrown around are unquestionably low.
[/quote
Umm 1 in 20, thats 5%  ))

Quote from: Shambles on March 01, 2018, 06:29:31 PM

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on March 01, 2018, 01:57:34 PM
<cue broken record sound>

I've heard, and believe, that 1 in 20 men crossdresses. That's 2.5% right there. The numbers thrown around are unquestionably low.

Umm 1 in 20, thats 5%  ))

Men are roughly half the population?  ;)

Hugs, Devlyn

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on March 01, 2018, 06:36:46 PM
Umm 1 in 20, thats 5%  ))


Men are roughly half the population?  ;)

Hugs, Devlyn

But women can crossdress too! It's just more socially acceptable. :D At much higher rates than 5%, though I doubt many would consider themselves trans because of it. That's where the definition issue comes into play again and makes it so reliant on self identification. Likewise, many male crossdressers might not consider themselves trans in the slightest.

Exactly my point. Which brings us back to 5%.

I've spent nights with hundreds of trans women. If we were as rare as some people say we are, that wouldn't be possible.

Hugs, Devlyn

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on March 01, 2018, 07:00:40 PM
Exactly my point. Which brings us back to 5%.

I've spent nights with hundreds of trans women. If we were as rare as some people say we are, that wouldn't be possible.

Hugs, Devlyn

But is that a true indicator of population? If you are Native American and grow up on tribal lands, you would spend every day with hundreds of Native Americans. That doesn't necessarily indicate a sizable portion of the general population, because of the nature of demographic clumping. I feel as though it would also be the case if the numbers were as high as 5%, even with the most inclusive definition, things would have come to a head long ago regarding the issue. 5% is the threshold for a rare occurrence in most statistical analysis, and so hitting 5% or above would mean that we aren't just not rare, but that would make it more likely to be trans than Jewish. I don't know the exact numbers off hand for religious identifications, but I'd wager it would put being trans at more common than being any minority faith (ie: not Christian or Atheist). It seems exceedingly unlikely such a large population would stay hidden for so long.

(This is purely academic on my part, not meant to be argumentative, I've genuinely been trying to figure this out because it has me completely stumped.)

Well Dears, we'll just have to put our collective genius together and figure it out.

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on March 01, 2018, 07:00:40 PM
Exactly my point. Which brings us back to 5%.

I've spent nights with hundreds of trans women. If we were as rare as some people say we are, that wouldn't be possible.

Hugs, Devlyn

Well Devyln, did you please them all?

Maybe its becoming a 1/10 thing...?
Im not sure...
Though i am sure its always been a high number.
Even in older times...
People are who they are and struggle in different ways.
Maybe one day well know :)

I think the only way we may get a vague percentage is if a national body commissioned a survey but even on these, respondents either lie or won't declare.

UK hospitals (either staying or for daily appointment) ask you to fill in Questionnaire which asks the Transgender Question amongst others.

in 2021 there will be a full UK Census.

However I don't see how we could ever truly know statistics on Trans.

Pamela

Quote from: pamelatransuk on March 03, 2018, 09:04:42 AM
I think the only way we may get a vague percentage is if a national body commissioned a survey but even on these, respondents either lie or won't declare.

UK hospitals (either staying or for daily appointment) ask you to fill in Questionnaire which asks the Transgender Question amongst others.

in 2021 there will be a full UK Census.

However I don't see how we could ever truly know statistics on Trans.

Pamela

To get accurate numbers two things need to happen:

1) Cultural, social, and legal acceptance must be close enough to absolute (ie: no negative, including in personal feelings, to being trans or coming out).

2) It loses its cultural cachet in certain circles, so no one is falsely claiming the label by a reasonable standard. (It is expressly important to note that this is not in anyway a statement on non-binary or non-conforming identities, but rather a simple acknowledgement that the water is muddied a bit in some youth/college age demographics, with individuals who in a void, without social/peer influence would never label themselves as transgender-- and most likely will not continue to do so as they grow older. It is also an acknowledgement of the blurry macro social line between being transgender in any m/f/nb/nc identity, and those who simply believe in a gender-less society that abolishes gender entirely regardless of their identity.)

Of course there are certain statistical confidence levels that can be drawn that aren't precise, but precise enough, as we approach these two things (primarily the first, the latter is probably only the most minute of inflation, though it does tend to be a group that by its nature is vocal, which may have a compounding effect with the broader invisibility of the transgender population for gathering more accurately nuanced data).

Though we do ultimately run afoul of one major issue no matter what... What value does the data hold besides sating curiosity? Statistical information should have some relevance, and I'm not entirely sure that a measurement of the transgender umbrella provides much insight into necessary policy or social changes. We have to really break it down into sub groups, and determine the needs of each of those subgroups, in order to use the data properly, and that is where things get very, very difficult due to the diverse nature of the trans umbrella which is necessarily reliant on self identification. Also inevitably, someone will be left out or offended they are not represented, in their view, properly. For a basic example: To keep data simple and quantifiable, identification may be limited to M/F/NB. For those who are non-conforming(who in a simple data set may wind up being erroneously listed as cis-), bi-gender (but not NB), etc, this is a problem.

And my attempt to forestall working on school work continues.

This is being researched out the ying-yang these days.  The Transgender Population in the U.S.: What We Know From Current Studies (https://www.dailydot.com/irl/transgender-population-in-us/)

Just sticking to TSes, Lynn Conway pointed out years ago that if you just tally up all the GCS surgeries in the US you get a figure around 1:2500.
  She later estimated that it's even higher:
  On the Calculation of the Prevalence of Transsexualism (http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Prevalence/Reports/Prevalence%20of%20Transsexualism.pdf).  Which is something to keep in mind when confronting people who insist we're not "normal."

Quote from: Lucy Ross on March 03, 2018, 04:57:28 PM
This is being researched out the ying-yang these days.  The Transgender Population in the U.S.: What We Know From Current Studies (https://www.dailydot.com/irl/transgender-population-in-us/)

Just sticking to TSes, Lynn Conway pointed out years ago that if you just tally up all the GCS surgeries in the US you get a figure around 1:2500.
  She later estimated that it's even higher:
  On the Calculation of the Prevalence of Transsexualism (http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Prevalence/Reports/Prevalence%20of%20Transsexualism.pdf).  Which is something to keep in mind when confronting people who insist we're not "normal."

Hi Lucy (I'm home - sorry the Devyln made me do that) 
Glad to see you're up and about - hadn't seen any posts from you recently.

Hi Cassi,

Oh, not to worry, I'm an intermittent contributor here, nuts-and-bolts topics like this always get my attention though.

Lucy,

The links to those studies are very interesting, but counting the size of our community has one big glaring problem. So many of us are in denial for many reasons. We can count the number of those who have had GCS and those who are in therapy, either pre-op or non-op, but because we are often in denial to ourselves, we will never get a count of the absolute total transgender population.

Quote from: kokasaki on March 01, 2018, 08:53:34 AM
I think it will be hard to ever know just how many of us there are.

This is probably the most accurate thing one can say about our numbers.  There was a petition last year to ask Statistics Canada to include a question on gender identity in the next census, just because there isn't any reliable information.

Even a census with mandatory reporting will end up underreporting.  If a census had asked me about my gender identity as recently as five years ago, I would have said cis-male, because that's what I thought I was.

Quote from: KathyLauren on March 04, 2018, 07:16:40 AM
This is probably the most accurate thing one can say about our numbers.  There was a petition last year to ask Statistics Canada to include a question on gender identity in the next census, just because there isn't any reliable information.

Even a census with mandatory reporting will end up underreporting.  If a census had asked me about my gender identity as recently as five years ago, I would have said cis-male, because that's what I thought I was.

Quote from: Dani on March 04, 2018, 06:44:23 AM
Lucy,

The links to those studies are very interesting, but counting the size of our community has one big glaring problem. So many of us are in denial for many reasons. We can count the number of those who have had GCS and those who are in therapy, either pre-op or non-op, but because we are often in denial to ourselves, we will never get a count of the absolute total transgender population.

That is part of what would have to be addressed by what I mentioned in my previous post about what has to happen before we can get accurate numbers. The social/cultural shift must be so close to absolute, that there is never even a personal feeling that necessitates denial or hiding, which goes hand in hand with awareness. I think that is something you are starting to see with the current group of kids, is that, even if they fear they need to hide, their sense of self awareness is dramatically higher than those of us born before the 2000s, even those of us born in the 90's or 80' who otherwise aren't very far removed from the current cohort in other ways.

 :D

Quote from: Lucy Ross on March 04, 2018, 02:56:43 AM
Hi Cassi,

Oh, not to worry, I'm an intermittent contributor here, nuts-and-bolts topics like this always get my attention though.

Yay a little fun...

Pareto has some input here, with 80:20
So using that rule, 20 out of a population of 100 will question their gender
Of those 20 at present 20% may transition in some way.

That would give 4% as a loose estimate of questioned and actively seeking transformation, or have transformed themselves

If we take it that of those 20, 20% will think about transitioning giving 4 in 100
Of those 4 contemplating transition a high side estimate would be 3 who transition and a low side estimate would be 1.

From this I am more comfortable with the low side estimate, as being pragmatic, however this indicates that there may well be four times the number of us than society is expecting.. that will challenge the status quo a lot.

Food for thought

Rowan

It's interesting how the discussion wobbles from "Who is" to "Who should be counted"

I thought Cassi was trying to get the size of the transgender community, not the size of the pool of people needing policy change or medical intervention. Can you clarify that, O/P?

Quote from: Cassi on February 28, 2018, 11:45:12 PM
Wow, it's hard to believe that I've only been on this site for a little over two months - seems like ages. 

And while I tend to joke and make idiotic comments every now and then, I have found information helpful and communicating with you all has helped me to come to terms with Cassi.

That said, I have begun to wonder how many of us there are, transgender MTF or FTM.  For so long I was locked in the visual image of transsexual beings and the image of porn stars and that kept me from accepting who I was.  Thankfully, I found this site and that helped me more than I could ever seriously express.

Hugs

Cassi

I guess I'm trans. But androgynous at the same time... Had orch.. take estrogen. But live androgynous. People call me as they see me and I correct nothing. Because I am both at the same time. I do t switch one day to the next but androgynous and celibate. I live sexless and am attracted to a spiritual high dimensional connection in others who seek the same level of Consciousness.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Anela on March 04, 2018, 01:50:48 PM
I guess I'm trans. But androgynous at the same time... Had orch.. take estrogen. But live androgynous. People call me as they see me and I correct nothing. Because I am both at the same time. I do t switch one day to the next but androgynous and celibate. I live sexless and am attracted to a spiritual high dimensional connection in others who seek the same level of Consciousness.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

That's kewl. 

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on March 04, 2018, 01:10:12 PM
It's interesting how the discussion wobbles from "Who is" to "Who should be counted"

I thought Cassi was trying to get the size of the transgender community, not the size of the pool of people needing policy change or medical intervention. Can you clarify that, O/P?

Who's O/P?

Quote from: Cassi on March 04, 2018, 03:50:51 PM
Who's O/P?

I think she means you.  OP = Original Poster, the person who started the thread.

Precisely.  :)

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on March 04, 2018, 05:50:49 PM
Precisely.  :)

Oooooh.  Wasn't sure.  Thought maybe Old Person?

The original intent was just how many or maybe percentage. 

Wasn't sure but seemed more than I would have thought before "joining".

Deviating from the original thought or idea doesn't bother me - free speech, etc.

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on March 04, 2018, 01:10:12 PM
It's interesting how the discussion wobbles from "Who is" to "Who should be counted"

I don't think that either of those question sums up the intent of the continued discussion though. Drawing statistical numbers does require a definition to go off of, and so consideration of that definition and how it might be addressed is a natural topic for the question of how many, often for the sake of inclusion not exclusion. This in turn does flow into the issue of delineation of subgroups to fully explain the data, but then that is just how data works to begin with, as it is meant to be broken down and analyzed in order to be applied for a purpose. Statistical data needs a reason to exist, and a non delineated transgender population value doesn't really have one other than the aforementioned sating curiosity. These and countless other things absolutely have to be considered in any study or polling in order to create remotely reliable numbers, otherwise you just wind up back where we are now. Self identification is wonderful from a social-cultural perspective, but it severely complicates attempts at representative math.

(Case in point on the importance of actually working these questions out: Someone recently posted a study link in these forums which had a somewhat poorly defined and inconsistent definition of "non-op" presented. The definitions were problematic in a number of ways, both by being inconsistent with one another, between the contradictory synopsis on the study and wording posted elsewhere, as well as not in line with the most commonly accepted definitions.)

(Random addendum because thinking about this is oddly relaxing for me... To go back to the delineation aspect for a moment, think about the overall U.S. population. If you provide the U.S. population, what can you glean from that? Well, pretty much just that number itself. You don't know the ethnic, religious, class, or fiscal breakdown, you don't know who is suffering and who is doing perhaps a little too well. Toss in another stat, such as the popular vote tallies for the Presidency when the candidate who led the popular vote lost the election. Suddenly that lack of delineation in the general population data, really, really, really matters. The overall population number explains precisely nothing of value to anyone. Voting patterns, disenfranchisement, fraud, you name it, all impossible to detect. Add in that delineation, patterns emerge. Answers are given, and the study/poll/census's existence is justified, not least of which from a financial perspective to warrant the commissioning of the study/poll/census in the first place.)

Wow  - all I can say is that at the moment I have 2 points of quite in-necessary aches and pains in my chest so I'm not commenting more as they  skew my logic somewhat..
But I'm so happy I'm that type of pain.

Hugz ()but not too hard)
Katie

Good holistic comments though and its good to see our community is very switched on and such a wide spectrum of experience as well.
Katie

Quote from: Katie Again on March 29, 2018, 07:09:25 PM
Wow  - all I can say is that at the moment I have 2 points of quite in-necessary aches and pains in my chest so I'm not commenting more as they  skew my logic somewhat..
But I'm so happy I'm that type of pain.

Hugz ()but not too hard)
Katie

Good to see you posting.  When the Twin Sisters start acting up I just sing them the Titty Titty Bang Bang.  It's the same music as the Chitty Chitty Bang Bang song from the movie of the same name:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P2jiRPlq2U

Quote from: Dani on March 01, 2018, 06:22:00 AM
With the US population at 330 million people and the best estimates at 1.5 % of all people being trans, my estimate is that there are about 5 million people in the US who have transgender issues of one sort or another.

I have seen a couple articles that put the figure at 1.4 million in the USA. These are transgender women that have had full SRS. I found this by searching for prostate cancer in men that have had an orchiectomy. There have only been 10 women out of that 1.4 mil that have come down with PC. That's about 7 to the -6 percent. It goes along with my belief that testosterone is the main culprit in PC.

I am going to have my orchiectomy asap, for trans reasons and PC. I don't need or want testes. They are a disaster waiting to happen.

Best,

Christine
EDITED: 04 August 2018 - cj78

Quote from: christinej78 on March 30, 2018, 12:14:35 AM
I have seen a couple articles that put the figure at 1.4 million in the USA. These are transgender women that have had full SRS.
Best,

Christine

Hello Christine

Really? 1.4 million women in US? I know they have been doing SRS/GCS for 50 years in US but this figure seems astronomical. Is the source credible and in any way verifyable do you know please? Thanking you

Pamela

Quote from: pamelatransuk on March 31, 2018, 09:21:55 AM
Hello Christine

Really? 1.4 million women in US? I know they have been doing SRS/GCS for 50 years in US but this figure seems astronomical. Is the source credible and in any way verifyable do you know please? Thanking you

Pamela

Hi Pamela,

I thought the number was rather small considering the US population is around 350 mil. Another number I have seen is that transgender people are .5% of the total population. That totals out at 1.75 million using 350 mil as the US total.

They seemed credible; I'll search then out and send you the links. I believe I saved the links for my urologist so I should be able to find them fairly soon. Since I'm not sure of this sites policy of posting links, I'll PM them.

Back to you soon,

Christine

Did I miss the definition?  In the case of the population is this just post op or?????

Quote from: christinej78 on March 30, 2018, 12:14:35 AM
I have seen a couple articles that put the figure at 1.4 million in the USA. These are transgender women that have had full SRS. I found this by searching for prostate cancer in men that have had an orchiectomy. There have only been 10 women out of that 1.4 mil that have come down with PC. That's about 7 to the -6 percent. It goes along with my belief that testosterone is the main culprit in PC.


I am going to have my orchiectomy asap, for trans reasons and PC. I don't need or want those nutty things dangling around any longer. They are a disaster waiting to happen.

For absolutely sure testosterone is the culprit in PC.   My numbers where not high (9) but the problem was I went from normal to that in less than 2 months and the biopsy confirmed cancer. From diagnosis to surgery was 3 months and the entire prostate was involve and into the margins in the bladder. Radiation fixed that part. My T had been high for several years. Psa blood test probably save my life. I only wish they had done an orchi at that time but hopefully get it done after the end of April.

Quote from: Donna on March 31, 2018, 08:16:34 PM

Thank you.

I talked with my primary care doctor about my belief that testosterone is the main culprit in prostate cancer and he agrees with me. At my age, 78 in a couple months, why do I need testes? I know the thing about osteoporosis, I exercise quite a bit and consume large quantities of milk, 2 gal. per week. Aside from that the estrogen I get from HRT will make up for the loss from the missing "T."

How can it not be the culprit when PC is fueled by testosterone. If "T" is absent how is PC going to start and even if it started, what is going to feed it. Here's another thing, with the testes gone, the prostate will shrink; when that happens I can get off flomax. One less drug flowing through my system. As I see it, getting rid of those things should be high up on every man's to-do list once he hits 60. Anyone contemplating fathering a child at that age is selfish and irresponsible; chances are the kid will grow up without a father.

Pamela, I haven't forgotten the links; I'll look for them later Easter Sunday; I have the day off.

Donna, sorry you had PC. I hope all is well. My thoughts and prayers are with you.

All the best,

Christine
EDITED: 04 August 2018 - cj78

Thank you. Had it removed in March 2007 and after radiation in December 2007 have been consistently 0.01 ever since. That is my favourite number to see for PSA.

Donna,

You are quite welcome; I'm glad your numbers are low. Yes 0.01 is a fantastic number; congratulations.

Pamela,

I found the links I promised you. Is it OK to post them here or should I send them to you via PM? I don't want to break any rules; being new here I don't know all of them.

I have the links in a Word document that I know I can attach to an email; I can PM you my email address if you would like or tell me how I can get them to you w/o busting rules and getting myself up before a firing squad; there are enough ex-mil folks here that one could be assembled on short notice, and I'd probably be dumb enough to volunteer for it.

Happy Easter Susan's members, guests, visitors and their families.

Christine

Quote from: christinej78 on March 31, 2018, 07:49:21 PM
Hi Pamela,

I thought the number was rather small considering the US population is around 350 mil. Another number I have seen is that transgender people are .5% of the total population. That totals out at 1.75 million using 350 mil as the US total.

They seemed credible; I'll search then out and send you the links. I believe I saved the links for my urologist so I should be able to find them fairly soon. Since I'm not sure of this sites policy of posting links, I'll PM them.

Back to you soon,

Christine

Christine

I don't think we may assume (unless it is specifically detailed) that when the rare statistics are taken of the Transgender community either in US or UK, they refer to those who have had GCS. As you probably know, most of us do not go all the way to GCS. The statistics usually refer to the very small part of the population where the individual declares as transgender on any sort of paperwork or medically or in polling.

So yes I can certainly believe 0.5% of population of US or UK is trans and indeed I suspect perhaps twice that making 3.3M in US and 0.7M in UK but I suspect those that have had GCS to be a fraction of those figures. I suspect they may have been a misunderstanding in the collection/correlation.

However I respect any information and will not discount any unless I have definite information to the contrary.

Therefore by all means quote here on this thread the link or PM me the link or PM me the document.

Finally I would say that GCS is more commonplace now that in the last century and I would still be surprised if GCS population was near to 0.5%. Prove me wrong by all means!

Thanking you and best wishes for the future.

Pamela