Ok, I typed up a super long thing that was really boring as if I were doing a school paper on transgender statistics. So I decided to ditch that, because... yeah, boring and most of you have probably seen the same studies, so why bother repeating them? But I still wanted to post my stupid joke below, so.... yeah.

Bottom line: All of the studies are unfortunately really flawed, and even what should be easily quantifiable variables such as SRS surgeries performed are muddied and inconsistent. Due to the nature of self reporting biases skewing data combined with improper methodology, I think it is virtually impossible to calculate the true rate of ->-bleeped-<-, and by that extension be able to draw statistical correlation between familial clusters. (Ie: If the incidence rate was higher than reported, then it would easy to imagine multiple family members coming out as transgender due to the first incidence establishing the baseline for acceptance within that family. Even if the anecdotal evidence for heritable transgender traits may be interesting and seemingly compelling, there isn't much we should assume from it statistically as truly indicative of correlation between genetics and ->-bleeped-<-. I just think the data doesn't exist to draw any conclusions in anyway essentially. Though note this does not mean to say we aren't born this way, but there is more to that than being an inheritable trait.)

Quote from: MaryT on October 23, 2017, 02:00:25 PM
That assumes that you choose the people in your life randomly.  The average person's chances of being eaten by a man-eating shark are pretty slim, but are significantly increased by habitually swimming with them and trying to act like an injured seal.

Way to buzzkill my one true passion in life. Injured seal cosplay is the only thing that keeps me going.