thanks for the input on the last post, next time i’ll make an actually interpretable one in like a year or something, or next time reddit fucks up
thanks for the input on the last post, next time i’ll make an actually interpretable one in like a year or something, or next time reddit fucks up
Sorry, but WTF is this math. Cis people, regardless of sexual orientation, are less than 65% of respondents. Straight people, regardless of gender identity, are also less than 65%. How come people who are both at the same time would be more? You are saying that e.g. cis straight people are more than straight people in total.
What your math gives is what share of cis people are straight, if we assume that all straight people are cis.
Why wouldn’t that be a reasonable assumption? If you identify as non-cis, then you likely identity as non-straight. Which would mean that if you identify as straight, you likely identify as cis. There might be some outliers of non-cis people that identify as straight, but they are statistically insignificant.
Otherwise, I’ve edited my comment for clarity, since people seemed to be having trouble extrapolating the conclusion.
The keyword is likely. I agree that there is some correlation, but we can’t know for sure how strong the connection is unless we are given the numbers, and their lack is the reason for this math in the first place. If we assume that all straight people are cis (which I doubt), then we need not do any math - the number of straight cis people is the number of straight people. If we assume no correlation at all (which I also doubt), then we get a more reasonable number. If we assume some correlation, then we just get a similar number, but the math gets a lot messier.