I'll give someone props for finally posting the links to the actual studies. However, I'll do my usual bit of pointing out why this is bullcrap.
First and foremost, the states they asked the questions in. According to the link provided (https://www.cms.gov/about-cms/agency-information/omh/resource-center/hcps-and-researchers/data-tools/sgm-clearinghouse/brfss), the study was done over three years with 400K people being asked each year. The problem comes with the constituent states. They don't even GIVE you what states they supposedly did the study in for the last year, but for the two years they do ordain to reveal the states of operation, you'll notice a pattern.
In the first year, 20 states, 11 of which are blue or blue leaning, and they included GUAM which is a US territory, not a state, and thus is typically not considered for US population statistics. They also cherry picked larger blue states and smaller red states. A good portion of the red states picked have the smallest populations among all states.
In the second year is even worse. 21 states total, of which 13 are blue or blue leaning. You should also begin noticing another pattern at this point. If you look up transgender populations of all the states they're "testing" in, you'll come to find they're literally cherry picking the states known to have the highest percentages (percentage, since that's what's being measured, not absolute population in which case california, a state that's noticeably absent from both data sets, would win) of transgenders.
For example, Hawaii, and Minnesota both have the highest transgender populations in the entire US and are present in both data sets. Likewise, Georgia, a red state by most people's definition, is known to have the largest transgender population of any red state (thanks to atlanta) if you go by percentages instead of absolute population. Idaho (also in both data sets) is ALSO a solid red state known to have an unreasonably high population percentage of queers (unsure about the exact statistic of transgenders), because of boise and moscow and it's location in relation to washington and oregon (lots of poor lower class liberals from both states go to college in Idaho because it's cheaper and then move back to oregon and washington)
You'll also notice they only reveal state, not the exact areas. So using Georgia as an example, if 100% of the participants come from Atlanta (the queer capital of the south east), then the results are obviously gonna be skewed compared to a proper study where participants are weighted based on actual population distribution. This is even more evident in states like Idah, Montana, Wyoming, etc. where they have such absurdly small populations that if you targeted specific areas where you KNOW you're likely to find larger populations of queers thanks to it being a college town for example, then you're intentionally skewing the results heavily in one direction.
All in all, this study, like most that push this narrative of transgenderism and faggotry in general growing among younger people, is faulty by its very nature and dishonest to the core. The truth of the matter is that if you group up all the faggots into a single category, they've been pretty stable at 3%-ish since we've been counting that stuff. Trans specifically make up less than 1% of any given population. The only reason it SEEMS like there's more of them these days is because they're much more visible due to being given a platform on a silver platter and forcibly shoehorning their way into anything and everything they can.
There's not more of them, it's just that the one's that ARE there are much more vocal and insist on being part of everything to try and pervert it.
That’s all fair assessment but I think the thing to take from this study is that, even if the % shown isn’t indicative of the total population, the trend seems accurate. There’s definitely a lot more younger people identifying as trans than older people - my theory is that it’s a social contagion and the younger people are more affected. But I agree, the states picked definitely skew the observed % higher. As long as the states are consistent then I think the trend we are seeing can be relied on.
There's a VERY simple, but morbid, reason for that. Queers in general have MUCH higher suicide rates than any other demographic ( I think it's like double or triple compared to everyone else), but transgenders are in a whole other category even compared to other queers. I think it's something like, transgenders are 10-20X more likely to commit suicide by the age of 25-30, and the likelihood increases exponentially with every decade they grow older. VERY few trans people ever actually end up "old" because they usually end up killing themselves way before they could grow old.
Morbid, I know, but that's the main reason it's more prevalent among younger demographics than older. Most of them will kill themselves before they get the chance to get old.
I'll give someone props for finally posting the links to the actual studies. However, I'll do my usual bit of pointing out why this is bullcrap.
First and foremost, the states they asked the questions in. According to the link provided (https://www.cms.gov/about-cms/agency-information/omh/resource-center/hcps-and-researchers/data-tools/sgm-clearinghouse/brfss), the study was done over three years with 400K people being asked each year. The problem comes with the constituent states. They don't even GIVE you what states they supposedly did the study in for the last year, but for the two years they do ordain to reveal the states of operation, you'll notice a pattern.
In the first year, 20 states, 11 of which are blue or blue leaning, and they included GUAM which is a US territory, not a state, and thus is typically not considered for US population statistics. They also cherry picked larger blue states and smaller red states. A good portion of the red states picked have the smallest populations among all states.
In the second year is even worse. 21 states total, of which 13 are blue or blue leaning. You should also begin noticing another pattern at this point. If you look up transgender populations of all the states they're "testing" in, you'll come to find they're literally cherry picking the states known to have the highest percentages (percentage, since that's what's being measured, not absolute population in which case california, a state that's noticeably absent from both data sets, would win) of transgenders.
For example, Hawaii, and Minnesota both have the highest transgender populations in the entire US and are present in both data sets. Likewise, Georgia, a red state by most people's definition, is known to have the largest transgender population of any red state (thanks to atlanta) if you go by percentages instead of absolute population. Idaho (also in both data sets) is ALSO a solid red state known to have an unreasonably high population percentage of queers (unsure about the exact statistic of transgenders), because of boise and moscow and it's location in relation to washington and oregon (lots of poor lower class liberals from both states go to college in Idaho because it's cheaper and then move back to oregon and washington)
You'll also notice they only reveal state, not the exact areas. So using Georgia as an example, if 100% of the participants come from Atlanta (the queer capital of the south east), then the results are obviously gonna be skewed compared to a proper study where participants are weighted based on actual population distribution. This is even more evident in states like Idah, Montana, Wyoming, etc. where they have such absurdly small populations that if you targeted specific areas where you KNOW you're likely to find larger populations of queers thanks to it being a college town for example, then you're intentionally skewing the results heavily in one direction.
All in all, this study, like most that push this narrative of transgenderism and faggotry in general growing among younger people, is faulty by its very nature and dishonest to the core. The truth of the matter is that if you group up all the faggots into a single category, they've been pretty stable at 3%-ish since we've been counting that stuff. Trans specifically make up less than 1% of any given population. The only reason it SEEMS like there's more of them these days is because they're much more visible due to being given a platform on a silver platter and forcibly shoehorning their way into anything and everything they can.
There's not more of them, it's just that the one's that ARE there are much more vocal and insist on being part of everything to try and pervert it.
That’s all fair assessment but I think the thing to take from this study is that, even if the % shown isn’t indicative of the total population, the trend seems accurate. There’s definitely a lot more younger people identifying as trans than older people - my theory is that it’s a social contagion and the younger people are more affected. But I agree, the states picked definitely skew the observed % higher. As long as the states are consistent then I think the trend we are seeing can be relied on.
There's a VERY simple, but morbid, reason for that. Queers in general have MUCH higher suicide rates than any other demographic ( I think it's like double or triple compared to everyone else), but transgenders are in a whole other category even compared to other queers. I think it's something like, transgenders are 10-20X more likely to commit suicide by the age of 25-30, and the likelihood increases exponentially with every decade they grow older. VERY few trans people ever actually end up "old" because they usually end up killing themselves way before they could grow old.
Morbid, I know, but that's the main reason it's more prevalent among younger demographics than older. Most of them will kill themselves before they get the chance to get old.
That’s horrifying to think about..