÷ÈÓ°Ö±²¥

In the wake of , the risks of being seen are clearer than ever, from and to the spread of .

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 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 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 — , who often still live with their parents.

The drop-off is lower in countries , 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 of discrimination, yet studies examining trans candidates separately .

Similarly, while LGBTQ2S+ candidates overall raise less money than straight, cisgender candidates, . 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 , CBRC later expanded to include . However, as samples broadened further to include , subgroup-specific findings risked being overshadowed unless data were disaggregated in reporting. In response, the organization began producing research that specifically .

But even when data are collected and analyzed appropriately, access remains an obstacle.