Re:The erasure of women from online pregnancy literature
by snoozing on Sunday November 20, 2022 @02:15AM
(#33679011)
0.13% -> 1% doesn’t feel like rounding (it’s actually nearly a 10x change). 0.13 is not a large fraction.
Assuming good intentions based on your other comments, but these things can elicit negative responses.
Re:The erasure of women from online pregnancy literature
by socialismisok on Sunday November 20, 2022 @02:53AM
(#33679181)
Note that .13% was not what I rounded up. That .13% is a subset of people who are gender minorities (eg trans or non-binary) and there are several academic estimates that put the number higher than 1%.
My intuition, reading through the studies and talking a conservative estimate, is that something like 0.6 to 0.8% is a defensible estimate. I rounded that to 1%. Other scholars pick higher or lower numbers, but it's not 10%, and I firmly believe that it's not 0.1% based on studies, which makes 1% the correct order of magnitude, imo.
Many, many more people have different genetic configurations that can manifest well after birth.
I'll admit I rounded up to one percent from something that was a large fractional percent.