Richard Juang, a respected scholar and activist, has posted some national statistics on transgender discrimination. He cites studies showing a 35% unemployment rate and 60% earning less than $15,300, as well as high rates of workplace termination, denial of employment and harassment. It's interesting to compare these to the statistics in the general US population.
The transgender statistics are much higher that the statistics in the general US population - the unemployment rate is about 8 times higher and the poverty rate is about 5 times higher. The general population statistics show a a 4.5% unemployment rate and a 13% poverty rate (earning $10,488 or less for 2006). But there are difficulties with making these statements. First is the fact that the poverty rate threshold, $10,488, is lower than the $15,300 cited in the statistics. But the rate comparison is still useful, because $15,300 is still a fairly low income, and it's reasonable to figure that the percent of the general population earning that amount might be 15% to 20%. That would make the poverty rate for transgender people three times higher - still extremely high.
In any event, this minor peccadillo is nothing compared to the gaping hole of sample selection - how they found the people included in the survey. In other words, if you were to put all the names of transgender people in the US in a hat and draw out the names of 100 of them at random, you'd get a bunch of people pretty much unconnected to each other. If you looked at their incomes, you'd probably find a wide disparity. But if I were to distribute the survey through the local GLBT center to find 100 transgender people, you'd probably find that this group is less random and more connected by certain characteristics - perhaps, for example, age. It may be that younger people ages 16-24 tend to go to the GLBT center. Younger people 16-24 tend to have lower incomes and higher unemployment. But our comparison figures for the US general population are people of all ages under 65. And that group has people in their 50's at the peak of their income and employment. So we're comparing a group of young transgender people with a group of all-age US residents. It's like comparing the New York Yankees to the Brooklyn Cyclones (a minor league baseball team). In fact, if you look at the San Francisco study, they acknowledge that it was not distributed to transgender people randomly, but rather through personal contacts, social service and volunteer organizations, email lists, and a website. "It is not a random sampling and should not be understood to be scientific in nature."
Now, I have no doubt that unemployment and poverty statistics among transgender people are higher than the general population, and that the difference is based on discrimination. But in reading a study, the key is knowing who they're measuring and who is not being measured. When you do a random sample, you can find out how many people don't respond, and get a sense of the demographics you're missing. With a self-selection system, where anyone who wants to can fill out the survey, it is likely that the people choosing to take the time and effort to fill out the survey are people who are interested in the topic (discrimination) and who have extra time on their hands (most of the high income group is at the office and has no time for this nonsense). So in terms of a strict comparison - 4.5% unemployment rate versus 35% unemployment rate - it's not likely to be very accurate. Nor is there an easy way to get a random sample of transgender people, because many transgender people are not out and there's no way to find them. Does that mean we should ignore these statistics? Absolutely not. In terms of getting a sense of what 194 transgender people in San Fransisco said about their lives - it's a useful snapshot. Those 194 are getting kicked around by the system. Transgender people generally may or may not be getting a fairer shake. But it's clear that a lot of transgender people aren't.
