Good news! Roughly 1% of US people surveyed in 2025 voluntarily identified themselves as transgender, and since a great many in the US would be too scared to reveal this info about themselves, the number may be substantially higher. But let’s work with 1%.
So it would seem like cisgender folk are at least ~10x as likely as trans folk to do mass shootings :)
Do I think that being cisgender predisposes you to mass shootings? No, obviously. But the narrative being imposed in media is that being transgender does do so.
@Gladaed@feddit.org it would appear our instance is defederated from yours, so I’m unable to reply directly - no parade being rained on, you’re 100% correct and I’m quite aware of the issues with small sample sizes and small populations having wild variance.
Just an insight into my thought process, I left out discussion of any rigorous statistical analysis as I didn’t think it was necessary to get into the weeds to retort the “unless trans people are significantly greater than 0.1% then this chart isn’t a flex” statement, which read to me as dismissive of the ongoing media narrative around transgender folk at best, and transphobic at worst.
Seemed just uninformed and durdlely, but receptive to feedback. I.e. a good discussion, after all.
Defedded for tankyness/antisemitism discussion, iirc.
Or us being “pro genocide/zionosts” which was a perspective pushed by db0 and was highly contested in other instances.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but when you deal with low sample sizes you must check the T test. Just comparing centages does give bad results easily and intuition fails humans constantly.
“How Many Adults and Youth Identify as Transgender in the United States?” Does not imply there is an analysis that checks the likelihood of being a mass shooter being higher in trans individuals depending on the multiple definitions of mass shootings and after removing potential noise.
According to a 2024 analysis by the Poynter Institute, transgender people represent 0.1–1.5% of shooters in the US, and make up 0.5–1.6% of the population.[4]
See the Wikipedia source linked in reply for my question about sources.
Please note that such a small number of people imply that the variance would be very high. I.e. you mustn’t just compare numbers but do Student’s T test etc.
oh, i’m not arguing that this isn’t some kind of anti-trans propaganda campaign. don’t get me wrong: it obviously is. it’s just that i never would have guessed so many people identify as trans. i’m old, and this is a big change from even 20 years ago, when i wasn’t old. my internal metric was like “mayyyybe 0.1%”, hence the reply.
honestly, i’m still not sure i completely believe it’s so high, but it doesn’t really matter that much.
maybe the point i should have been making all along was “show the per-capita graph, because anything else is misrepresentation”, which, y’know, i stand by. and if it’s 10:1, that’s still incredibly powerful all on its own without misguiding people.
eta: i did read the article and couldn’t find any cites for the proportion of trans people in america, just a quote from the independent. i’m not arguing it is or isn’t that high, just that the article itself is about the misinformation campaign, not population data, and contains no links to said data that i could find.
The actual fact of the matter is that numbers aren’t large enough to make an strong statement one way or the other. In particular depending on your definition of mass shooting.
Statistics are frustrating.
There being no strong link does mean that the right is strictly in the wrong, as per usual, I guess.
you’re completely correct, and the frustration is real. making shit up about minority populations never seems to come with enough people saying “prove it.” and now we’re on the back foot trying to disprove something that can’t be shown one way or the other.
sounds like a trap. and, thinking about it, this is what the right does best these days: define the terms of the argument. you’ve lost as soon as you’ve stepped into the arena they’ve set up. and they do it kind of trivially: just make an outrageous claim, and now everyone’s talking about it on their terms. in a sensible world none of these people would be given the time of day, but here we are. i don’t know what to do about it.
Even assuming that the trans population is 0.1% (which it isnt, its much greater; usually i have seen 1%, but transphobia, lack of information, misinformation, confusion, fear of change etc. influence the number a lot), this would just mean being trans doesnt impact being a shooter or not and people who say otherwise are spreading lies about transgender people and incite fear and hatred, either from being misinformed or from the want to spread disinformation to achieve a goal
Edit: while writing this, 3 other people also commented
unless trans people are significantly greater than 0.1% of the population then this chart isn’t a flex
Good news! Roughly 1% of US people surveyed in 2025 voluntarily identified themselves as transgender, and since a great many in the US would be too scared to reveal this info about themselves, the number may be substantially higher. But let’s work with 1%.
So it would seem like cisgender folk are at least ~10x as likely as trans folk to do mass shootings :)
Do I think that being cisgender predisposes you to mass shootings? No, obviously. But the narrative being imposed in media is that being transgender does do so.
@Gladaed@feddit.org it would appear our instance is defederated from yours, so I’m unable to reply directly - no parade being rained on, you’re 100% correct and I’m quite aware of the issues with small sample sizes and small populations having wild variance.
Just an insight into my thought process, I left out discussion of any rigorous statistical analysis as I didn’t think it was necessary to get into the weeds to retort the “unless trans people are significantly greater than 0.1% then this chart isn’t a flex” statement, which read to me as dismissive of the ongoing media narrative around transgender folk at best, and transphobic at worst.
Seemed just uninformed and durdlely, but receptive to feedback. I.e. a good discussion, after all.
Defedded for tankyness/antisemitism discussion, iirc. Or us being “pro genocide/zionosts” which was a perspective pushed by db0 and was highly contested in other instances.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but when you deal with low sample sizes you must check the T test. Just comparing centages does give bad results easily and intuition fails humans constantly.
Or quote a rigorous source.
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/trans-adults-united-states/
Helpful, but insufficient since stats have higher standards than that.
You did not read the associated study in 3 minutes.
“How Many Adults and Youth Identify as Transgender in the United States?” Does not imply there is an analysis that checks the likelihood of being a mass shooter being higher in trans individuals depending on the multiple definitions of mass shootings and after removing potential noise.
My bad, I thought you were questioning the 1% number being the estimate of the percentage of trans people in the US.
According to a 2024 analysis by the Poynter Institute, transgender people represent 0.1–1.5% of shooters in the US, and make up 0.5–1.6% of the population.[4]
See the Wikipedia source linked in reply for my question about sources.
Please note that such a small number of people imply that the variance would be very high. I.e. you mustn’t just compare numbers but do Student’s T test etc.
yeah, it’s not being trans or cis, it’s being american. being trans doesn’t free you from that
That’s not what I said.
no, but strongly implied by the per-capital numbers being roughly similar, with the significant caveat that n=3
Please do give the article a read. Numbers are off by more than that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misinformation_about_violence_by_transgender_people
oh, i’m not arguing that this isn’t some kind of anti-trans propaganda campaign. don’t get me wrong: it obviously is. it’s just that i never would have guessed so many people identify as trans. i’m old, and this is a big change from even 20 years ago, when i wasn’t old. my internal metric was like “mayyyybe 0.1%”, hence the reply.
honestly, i’m still not sure i completely believe it’s so high, but it doesn’t really matter that much.
maybe the point i should have been making all along was “show the per-capita graph, because anything else is misrepresentation”, which, y’know, i stand by. and if it’s 10:1, that’s still incredibly powerful all on its own without misguiding people.
eta: i did read the article and couldn’t find any cites for the proportion of trans people in america, just a quote from the independent. i’m not arguing it is or isn’t that high, just that the article itself is about the misinformation campaign, not population data, and contains no links to said data that i could find.
The actual fact of the matter is that numbers aren’t large enough to make an strong statement one way or the other. In particular depending on your definition of mass shooting.
Statistics are frustrating. There being no strong link does mean that the right is strictly in the wrong, as per usual, I guess.
you’re completely correct, and the frustration is real. making shit up about minority populations never seems to come with enough people saying “prove it.” and now we’re on the back foot trying to disprove something that can’t be shown one way or the other.
sounds like a trap. and, thinking about it, this is what the right does best these days: define the terms of the argument. you’ve lost as soon as you’ve stepped into the arena they’ve set up. and they do it kind of trivially: just make an outrageous claim, and now everyone’s talking about it on their terms. in a sensible world none of these people would be given the time of day, but here we are. i don’t know what to do about it.
Even assuming that the trans population is 0.1% (which it isnt, its much greater; usually i have seen 1%, but transphobia, lack of information, misinformation, confusion, fear of change etc. influence the number a lot), this would just mean being trans doesnt impact being a shooter or not and people who say otherwise are spreading lies about transgender people and incite fear and hatred, either from being misinformed or from the want to spread disinformation to achieve a goal
Edit: while writing this, 3 other people also commented
I gotta look this up, not at home rn, but i think about 1% of people are trans. I’ll update this if i can’t confirm that