Given that a large part of LW is drawn from the Bay Area, which IIRC has significantly higher trans density than the at-large 1%, that’s actually under where I would expect.
Wait, 1.3% trans women. Depending on the number of trans men, that may be much closer to representative of the broader likely-to-encounter-LW population. (Which I’d expect to have 2x-5x as many trans people as the general population.)
1.3% trans! That’s super cool
Given that a large part of LW is drawn from the Bay Area, which IIRC has significantly higher trans density than the at-large 1%, that’s actually under where I would expect.
Wait, 1.3% trans women. Depending on the number of trans men, that may be much closer to representative of the broader likely-to-encounter-LW population. (Which I’d expect to have 2x-5x as many trans people as the general population.)
From the 2012 survey results:
Previously discussed here.
OK, still lower than I would expect, then. Somewhat disappointing.