1

For this question I am going to refer to Why are trans-women more common than trans-men?

I said it before in a comment on the question that this question should be closed for being opinion-based, and it was deleted by someone. Since then, an answer has been given which to me is supposing that a lot of them may be gay and being trans is for economic reasons (for prostitution). This answer is therefore potentially considered on the offensive side even though it may have been written with no offense intended.

So I will say it again. This question, to me, will only result in opinion-based answers as nobody can say why there are statistically more trans-women than trans-men.

There are also non-binary trans people who are not accounted for and this question is in the same vein as asking why a homosexuality exists.

Why are others not trans? Why are non-trans people happy in their own bodies when trans people are not until their transition is complete?

You just can't answer this kind of question with objective reasoning, so what makes this question not opinion-based?

Should all other questions asking why particular groups of people are different to others be re-opened?

| |
  • 2
    Thank you for generalizing this and moving this to meta! I presume Arnon removed all comments since they were getting out of hand and a large part of them were addressed. However, your concern that this is opinion-based was removed in the process, as well as your helpful comment regarding non-binary individuals. I edited/undeleted this. – Steven Jeuris Aug 22 '19 at 9:13
  • I looked at the reference the OP included to support the ratios and frankly I think it gives the best answer that will be possible without opinion. In summary, people have different reasons for how they identify, non-binary categories matter as Chris points out, and estimates of trans populations is inherently inaccurate and undersampled. It's not really possible to say whether the observed ratios are "correct" from various ratios. I might take the time to post that non-answer answer but otherwise I agree it's not going to get the answer OP wants. – Bryan Krause Aug 22 '19 at 13:49
  • 1
    The existing answer I think has some value though I also find it a bit offensive. At a minimum, it shows that what it means for someone to describe themselves as trans is complex and the meaning is not the same everywhere. – Bryan Krause Aug 22 '19 at 13:50
  • 2
    In the strictest sense, why is a causation word and therefore it is unlikely that a proper study can be conducted. I think objective reasoning can be used to look at correlated factors and still be informative. – StrongBad Aug 22 '19 at 13:50
  • 1
    Sometimes questions openly solicit opinions, as in "please discuss" or "what do you think" or "what are some possibilities". I edited this out of the question, and deleted the comment that it invites opinions, as it no longer does. It is also possible for questions to elicit opinions unintentionally due to vague or ambiguous language. There are certainly topics that elicit opinions regardless of the question's quality, and there are questions for which authoritative answers don't exist yet, but that is not a reason to close them - a simple answer "this is not yet known" is also valid. – Arnon Weinberg Aug 22 '19 at 20:36
  • 3
    Fully with you on this one, @Arnon! And, as @Bryan states, the current answer does have value. The potential of causing offense should not stop us from talking about subjects like this. We should simply stay considerate, as should those that might get offended. I did add a post notice that references are needed, though. – Steven Jeuris Aug 23 '19 at 8:08
7

The titular question is difficult to answer. It is nominally asking for causative factors: WHY does this happen. I am not sure if it is asking about causative factors leading to gender dysphoria or causative factors leading to some sort of gender transition treatment. There are obvious difficulties associated with identifying causative factors. The body of the question suggests to me that an answer that focuses on correlated factors would be of value

... what is the most likely reason for this? Does the large discrepancy in numbers suggest such a genetic component?

There are presumably a lot of high quality studies, albeit with limitations due to the difficulty of studying the population, that have looked at correlated factors.

The question does not seem to be asking for opinion based answers and does not necessarily need to be answered with opinion. To me that makes it a good question. I also agree that there is the potential for it to attract low quality opinions as answers and these should be down voted into oblivion.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .