It also stated: \”Despite the impression given by the media, the actual number of homosexuals is quite small. Essentially all surveys show the number of homosexuals to be only 1-3% of the population.\”
Drugs charities and experts yesterday expressed surprise that someone of such stringent opinions could be appointed to the committee.
Some of his other views do seem a tad, erm, strong shall we say, but that particular bit seems to be simply a statement of fact.
But why would anyone declare a statement of fact to be \”stringent\” if there wasn\’t some political malarkey behind the number?
An interesting note to add to our new curriculum using population surveys of gays to teach children about statistics, eh? Or even the political use of them?
I’d say 3% is on the high side. So is 2%. 1% I’d buy, although I wouldn’t be surprised if a truly accurate assay of the population put it at a smaller figure than that. And of course in the context of this story, one must remember that ‘controversial’ in Grauniad circles has a different meaning than in the populace at large.
Errm, commented on this before seeing the post below.
I’ve used John Paulos’ statistcal arguments to make my point that statistics are occasionally inly as good as the question and it is possible to “prove” bias/racism/sexism where none exists.
One old stats joke was
“World Ends at Midnight – Women and Ethnic Minorities Hardest Hit”