Simpson’s Paradox in LGBTQ+ Policy: a Case Study

Abstract

Introduction

Simpson’s paradox occurs when trends found in the underlying data disappear or are reversed when groups are aggregated. Because reported data are used to guide policymaking, understanding and being able to identify instances of Simpson’s paradox is crucial to LGBTQ+ policy.

Method

The article offers a theoretical introduction to Simpson’s paradox before looking to a recent LGBT poverty study as a case study of the paradox and of its dangers in the context of LGBTQ+ policy. It then offers suggestions for minimizing the impact of the paradox for researchers and data users.

Results

The Williams Institute’s LGBT Poverty Study reported a much higher percentage of cisgender bisexual women living in poverty compared to other cisgender LGB groups. The rate of poverty was comparable to that of transgender respondents. However, the pattern was absent from age-disaggregated data and arose from the proportionately younger age of cisgender bisexual women in the study.

Conclusion

Aggregate statistics and how they are reported may misrepresent the causal relationship between group belonging and outcome.

Policy implications

Researchers should seek to minimize the risk of readers falling prey to the paradox by deliberately discussing the impact of confounding variables in the abstract or executive summary of their study, and by varying how they elect to report, represent, and disseminate the information. Policymakers and other data users should be cognizant of and attentive to Simpson’s paradox when interpreting studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Bisexual cisgender women reporting a race or ethnicity other than white, Black, and Hispanic had slightly lower poverty rates than cisgender lesbians but remained much more likely to be poor than other groups.

References

  1. Ashley, F. (2021, In press). ‘Trans’ is my gender modality: a modest terminological proposal. In L. Erickson-Schroth (Ed.), Trans bodies, trans selves (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

  2. Badgett, M. V. L., Choi, S. K., & Wilson, B. D. M. (2019). LGBT poverty in the United States: a study of differences between sexual orientation and gender identity groups. Williams Institute.

  3. Bauer, G. R., Scheim, A. I., Pyne, J., Travers, R., & Hammond, R. (2015). Intervenable factors associated with suicide risk in transgender persons: a respondent driven sampling study in Ontario, Canada. BMC Public Health, 15(1), 525. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1867-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Boellstorff, T., Cabral, M., Cardenas, M., Cotten, T., Stanley, E. A., Young, K., & Aizura, A. Z. (2014). Decolonizing transgender: a roundtable discussion. TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly, 1(3), 419–439. https://doi.org/10.1215/23289252-2685669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Carbado, D. W. (2013). Colorblind intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38(4), 811–845. https://doi.org/10.1086/669666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chibbaro Jr., L. (2017). Protester disrupts trans day of remembrance. Washington Blade. https://www.washingtonblade.com/2017/11/21/protester-disrupts-trans-day-remembrance/

  7. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gossett, C. (2015). Abolitionist imaginings: a conversation with Bo Brown, Reina Gossett, and Dylan Rodríguez. In E. A. Stanley & N. Smith (Eds.), Captive Genders: Trans Embodiment and the Prison Industrial Complex (pp. 357–378). AK Press.

  9. Koh, A. S., & Ross, L. K. (2006). Mental health issues: a comparison of lesbian, bisexual and heterosexual women. Journal of Homosexuality, 51(1), 33–57. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v51n01_03.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lamble, S. (2008). Retelling Racialized violence, remaking white innocence: the politics of interlocking oppressions in transgender day of remembrance. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 5(1), 24–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Milner, A., Taouk, Y., Disney, G., Aitken, Z., Rachele, J., & Kavanagh, A. (2018). Employment predictors of exit from work among workers with disabilities: a survival analysis from the household income labour dynamics in Australia survey. PLoS One, 13(12), e0208334. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208334.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Pearl, J. (2014). Comment: understanding Simpson’s paradox. The American Statistician, 68(1), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2014.876829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Snorton, C. R., & Haritaworn, J. (2013). Trans Necropolitics: a transnational reflection on violence, death and the trans of color afterlife. In S. Stryker & A. Aizura (Eds.), The Transgender Studies Reader 2 (pp. 66–76). Routledge.

  14. Stanley, E. A., & Smith, N. (Eds.). (2015). Captive genders: trans embodiment and the prison industrial complex. AK Press.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Florence Ashley.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ashley, F. Simpson’s Paradox in LGBTQ+ Policy: a Case Study. Sex Res Soc Policy (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-020-00500-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • LGBTQ+
  • Policymaking
  • Simpson’s paradox
  • Statistics
  • Age
  • Sexual orientation
  • Gender