Survey Claim About Decline in Trans Identity Found Inaccurate

In a swift rebuke to claims that transgender identification is declining in America, independent researchers have debunked a controversial analysis that rapidly gained traction in conservative circles this week.

On Tuesday, right-wing academic Eric Kaufmann published what he described as groundbreaking research through his Centre for Heterodox Social Science and the outlet UnHerd. His analysis claimed transgender identification among young Americans was in “free fall,” a conclusion that spread quickly through conservative social media channels.

High-profile figures including Elon Musk and conservative commentator Matt Walsh amplified Kaufmann’s findings, with Walsh declaring, “Transgenderism is effectively over. We destroyed it.” Musk personally thanked Walsh for “playing a major role” in what they framed as a cultural victory.

However, data scientists examining Kaufmann’s methodology quickly identified critical flaws that completely invalidated his conclusions. Jacob Eliason, who led the independent review, discovered that Kaufmann had failed to apply standard statistical weighting to the survey data from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), rendering his analysis fundamentally unsound.

When the data was properly weighted to ensure national representativeness – a basic requirement in survey research – the trend line reversed entirely. Rather than showing a decline, the correctly analyzed data revealed that gender-nonconforming identification has actually increased to approximately 10 percent of respondents and has remained stable through 2024.

“Deriving causal claims about temporal effects from cross-sectional data is always challenging, but a good faith answer to the question of how the prevalence of gender non-conforming identification has changed over time is dead on arrival without survey weights,” Eliason explained.

Multiple statistics experts confirmed the severity of this methodological error. Dr. Robert Bohan, who holds a diploma in advanced statistics from Trinity College Dublin, compared it to publishing an unweighted political poll – something no reputable organization would consider valid.

“Without weighting, a survey is unrepresentative,” Bohan stated. “For instance, if you survey 40 people randomly, and discover that 30 of them are male, that’s not representative of the population which is 49% male, 51% female.”

The importance of proper weighting becomes even clearer when considering how sampling can vary between survey years. If one year’s respondents come predominantly from liberal arts colleges and the next year primarily from rural campuses, any apparent shifts in LGBTQ+ identification could simply reflect these sampling differences rather than actual population trends.

When questioned about his decision to ignore survey weights, Kaufmann offered a dismissive response: “Yes no weights. I don’t believe weighting is appropriate for this kind of over time analysis.” Data scientists universally rejected this rationale, noting that weighting is especially crucial in longitudinal studies to ensure meaningful comparisons across time periods.

To verify the proper methodology, journalists contacted FIRE directly, whose spokesperson Karl de Vries confirmed: “FIRE strongly recommends applying the weights to all analyses, as this is a standard practice in survey research.”

In stark contrast to Kaufmann’s discredited claims, reputable research indicates transgender identification in America continues to grow. Gallup polling, which employs proper survey methodology including appropriate weighting, found that 1.3 percent of Americans now identify as transgender – up from 0.9 percent in 2023 and significantly higher than the approximately 0.5 percent reported in earlier years.

Generation Z accounts for much of this increase, reflecting broader trends in LGBTQ+ identification across all categories. Social scientists attribute this growth to decreasing stigma and greater visibility, which allows more people to openly express their authentic identities.

This incident highlights the dangers of ideologically motivated research that bypasses rigorous peer review. Kaufmann, previously known for controversial writings on “white self-interest,” published his analysis through platforms aligned with his political viewpoint rather than submitting to independent scientific scrutiny.

When fundamental errors go unchecked, misinformation can spread rapidly through social media and influence public perception and policy discussions long before corrections can catch up. The episode serves as a reminder of the importance of methodological rigor in research and careful verification of claims, especially on socially and politically charged topics.