Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Elizabeth Baisley, Assistant Professor, political studies, Queen’s University, Ontario
In the wake of Trans Day of Visibility, the risks of being seen are clearer than ever, from rising hate crimes and online harassment to the spread of anti-trans legislation.
But visibility alone is not enough. Trans people are still systematically under-counted or obscured in the data that shapes policy.
In an era when policy and even advocacy are increasingly data-driven, counting trans people properly in data remains essential — without it, inequality cannot be adequately addressed.
To do so, we need to improve data collection, analysis and sharing practices.
Current data collection methods fall short
Although governments and organizations are increasingly collecting data on trans people, current methods can lead to under-counting.
When Canada became the first country in the world to publish census data on trans and non-binary people, it collected that information using a household questionnaire. Parents of trans youth might have been the ones filling out the answers for their children.
This likely contributes to under-counting because younger people are typically more likely to identify as trans — except 15- to 19-year-olds, who often still live with their parents.
The drop-off is lower in countries like Scotland, which use private, individual questionnaires, offering a potential model for others.
But even when trans people are included in data sets, they can disappear during analysis.
Grouping LGBTQ2S+ data can be misleading
Trans people can disappear during analysis when grouped with other LGBTQ2S+ people, a pattern seen across both academia and community-based research.
For example, studies on political candidates that treat LGBTQ2S+ people as a single group often find little evidence of discrimination, yet studies examining trans candidates separately show that they face voter bias.
Similarly, while LGBTQ2S+ candidates overall raise less money than straight, cisgender candidates, the causes differ. For many sexual minority candidates, funding gaps stem from structural inequalities in incumbency, past political experience and district competitiveness, while trans candidates would still raise less money even if those inequalities disappeared.
Disaggregated analyses therefore show that targeted interventions — such as bias-reduction efforts and dedicated funds — remain necessary for trans candidates.
Some organizations have recognized the perils of aggregation and worked to produce research that makes trans people and their experiences visible. The Community-Based Research Centre (CBRC), Canada’s leading data collector on queer and trans health, offers a compelling example.
Initially focused on cisgender gay, bisexual and queer men, CBRC later expanded to include trans men, non-binary and Two-Spirit people. However, as samples broadened further to include all queer and trans identities, subgroup-specific findings risked being overshadowed unless data were disaggregated in reporting. In response, the organization began producing research that specifically examines trans experiences.
But even when data are collected and analyzed appropriately, access remains an obstacle.
Barriers to accessing trans-specific data
Sharing data can also pose barriers to trans-specific advocacy and policymaking when that data is inaccessible or only released in aggregate forms.
The 2021 census highlights this issue. Apart from Statistics Canada’s original release and a report showing poorer socioeconomic outcomes, we still know very little about trans people.
Statistics Canada usually only makes gender-based data from the 2021 census publicly available under the categories “Men+” and “Women+,” randomly assigning non-binary people to either group and not indicating whether anyone is trans.
If researchers want information about trans people, they must request access to a Research Data Centre through a lengthy process involving security clearance, fingerprinting, a credit check and long wait times, making it difficult to study these communities.
Steps to improve trans visibility
A few practical and co-ordinated changes in how data are collected, analyzed and shared would improve trans visibility. Here are four ways to start:
-
Involve trans people in data collection, analysis and publishing decisions. Inclusion may strengthen both legitimacy and data quality, as trans people may propose questions that elicit better responses from their communities. Lived knowledge can therefore inform analysis and decisions about sharing results.
-
Build disaggregation into reporting requirements for governments and organizations. If we care about gender-based inequalities, data must be disaggregated to identify distinct barriers and design targeted responses. Without it, policy and advocacy will miss those most affected.
-
Design data collection procedures to include trans people. Gender or sex questions are widespread. The question is not whether we collect data on trans people — we already do — but whether we design collection procedures with everyone in mind, allowing accurate counting and disaggregated analyses.
-
Look for opportunities to analyze and share data on trans people. Organizations often have statistical and ethical concerns around data on trans people. Although statistical analyses usually require large groups, it is still possible to analyze data on small groups when their patterns differ clearly from others. Alternatively, data can also be examined qualitatively.
Although we share ethical concerns around trans people’s privacy, there is often a way to share data without making individuals identifiable.
Visibility is complicated, but being counted in data is essential.
While better practices won’t fix everything, they are a good place to start. Because without better data, we cannot design effective policy or advocate for meaningful change. Let’s ensure trans people are counted, too.
Elizabeth Baisley has received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Francesco MacAllister-Caruso previously worked for the Community-Based Research Centre (CBRC) from 2020 to 2025.
Quinn M. Albaugh has received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
– ref. Counting trans people: Why better data collection is essential for better policy – https://theconversation.com/counting-trans-people-why-better-data-collection-is-essential-for-better-policy-278957