The twitter thread (nitter is a twitter mirror) uses the same data Zenz uses. But also, you should consider reading the rest of it. Zenz was not saying he made a mistake or that he should have paid more attention, he was saying that about his critics. He then answered the criticisms with more statistical sleight of hand that he doubled down on.
SUMMARY OF THE STATISTICAL SLEIGHT OF HAND OUTLINED IN THE LINK.
The statistic Zenz gives — that “80% of net IUD insertions in China were in XJ” — is extremely misleading because the percent is not out of 100. Using his math, many provinces have percentages below 0, because we are comparing net values. When you add up net values for all of China, negatives and positives cancel, giving a small denominator.
(Xinjiang insertions - removals) / (China insertions - removals) = a nonsense percentage, potentially negative, potentially dividing by zero
If you add up Xinjiang, Henan and Hebei you get 210%
So it’s not just a simple mistaken wording, the statistic itself was fundamentally nonsense from the start.
To drive the point home: In 2014, per the twitter thread, Xinjiang net insertions were roughly the same as in 2018, but China net insertions were much higher, so Xinjiang’s percent was only 2.5% rather than 80%, even though there was no significant change in Xinjiang.
Which brings me to the next point: There is a time element to the story. Less-developed provinces, where access to reproductive health services is still expanding, will have more net insertions, because there are fewer older people removing old IUDs. But over the years, insertions and removals will balance out, and can even dip negative in aging populations that have had IUD access for a long enough time. An underdeveloped province that is still expanding reproductive health access will have more net insertions than other provinces. It is expected that provinces will have high net insertions early in that timeline.
What’s missing is the actual number of IUDs in Xinjiang, which would be illuminating.
I did read the full thread, I must have misread his comment about a “mistake” though. But once I realized he was a dishonest, untrustworthy “scholar” I completely stopped arguing his point. I even struck my sources from my first comment, as at least the first is based on his “research” and there is no point in arguing about false/nonsensical data.
You may note that the UN Human Rights report never cites Zenz or any IUD data at all. It comes to the forced birth control and forced sterilization conclusion through other data and interviews. Did you get a chance to read through the UN report?
I’ve read through the reproductive rights section of the report but only some of the citations, and I’m still looking for the interviews.
The OHCHR report does cite Zenz in citation #140 a few times, on page 19 and continuing into the footnote on page 20 of the pdf.
Citation #140 is for a statistic that in certain counties 10–20% of the adult “ethnic population” (the report’s words) were detained.
The footnote mentions Zenz’s name twice, but also mentions Xinjiang Police Files, which is Zenz again.
I’m still looking for the 40 interviews. It would be really interesting to hear what they have to say. Speaking before seeing them, I’m not sure I can have full confidence in them when I’m aware of so many instances where western governments and their allies have produced false witness testimony to justify foreign policy, e.g., the Nayirah testimony before the Gulf War, witness accounts of Iraqi WMDs before the Iraq War, fictitious witness accounts of a genocide in Libya before the NATO bombing campaign that obliterated the country, and a large number of North Korean defector testimonies that have fallen apart under scrutiny, as reported by the Guardian. This is how consent is manufactured. America is engaged in a trade war with China and hostilities are escalating in the South China Sea, and these activities require consent from legislators and the public. But I’m not going to discount the interviews either — it’s evidence that has to be stacked up with other evidence and then appraised as a whole.
I’m trying to have a good faith conversation and you come at me with an ad hominem attack. I would love for it to not be true, I don’t want genocide anywhere, but I believe the evidence of my eyes. I’ve read the entire UN report. Have you?
The twitter thread (nitter is a twitter mirror) uses the same data Zenz uses. But also, you should consider reading the rest of it. Zenz was not saying he made a mistake or that he should have paid more attention, he was saying that about his critics. He then answered the criticisms with more statistical sleight of hand that he doubled down on.
SUMMARY OF THE STATISTICAL SLEIGHT OF HAND OUTLINED IN THE LINK.
The statistic Zenz gives — that “80% of net IUD insertions in China were in XJ” — is extremely misleading because the percent is not out of 100. Using his math, many provinces have percentages below 0, because we are comparing net values. When you add up net values for all of China, negatives and positives cancel, giving a small denominator.
(Xinjiang insertions - removals) / (China insertions - removals) = a nonsense percentage, potentially negative, potentially dividing by zeroIf you add up Xinjiang, Henan and Hebei you get 210%
So it’s not just a simple mistaken wording, the statistic itself was fundamentally nonsense from the start.
To drive the point home: In 2014, per the twitter thread, Xinjiang net insertions were roughly the same as in 2018, but China net insertions were much higher, so Xinjiang’s percent was only 2.5% rather than 80%, even though there was no significant change in Xinjiang.
Which brings me to the next point: There is a time element to the story. Less-developed provinces, where access to reproductive health services is still expanding, will have more net insertions, because there are fewer older people removing old IUDs. But over the years, insertions and removals will balance out, and can even dip negative in aging populations that have had IUD access for a long enough time. An underdeveloped province that is still expanding reproductive health access will have more net insertions than other provinces. It is expected that provinces will have high net insertions early in that timeline.
What’s missing is the actual number of IUDs in Xinjiang, which would be illuminating.
I did read the full thread, I must have misread his comment about a “mistake” though. But once I realized he was a dishonest, untrustworthy “scholar” I completely stopped arguing his point. I even struck my sources from my first comment, as at least the first is based on his “research” and there is no point in arguing about false/nonsensical data.
You may note that the UN Human Rights report never cites Zenz or any IUD data at all. It comes to the forced birth control and forced sterilization conclusion through other data and interviews. Did you get a chance to read through the UN report?
I’ve read through the reproductive rights section of the report but only some of the citations, and I’m still looking for the interviews.
The OHCHR report does cite Zenz in citation #140 a few times, on page 19 and continuing into the footnote on page 20 of the pdf.
Citation #140 is for a statistic that in certain counties 10–20% of the adult “ethnic population” (the report’s words) were detained.
The footnote mentions Zenz’s name twice, but also mentions Xinjiang Police Files, which is Zenz again.
I’m still looking for the 40 interviews. It would be really interesting to hear what they have to say. Speaking before seeing them, I’m not sure I can have full confidence in them when I’m aware of so many instances where western governments and their allies have produced false witness testimony to justify foreign policy, e.g., the Nayirah testimony before the Gulf War, witness accounts of Iraqi WMDs before the Iraq War, fictitious witness accounts of a genocide in Libya before the NATO bombing campaign that obliterated the country, and a large number of North Korean defector testimonies that have fallen apart under scrutiny, as reported by the Guardian. This is how consent is manufactured. America is engaged in a trade war with China and hostilities are escalating in the South China Sea, and these activities require consent from legislators and the public. But I’m not going to discount the interviews either — it’s evidence that has to be stacked up with other evidence and then appraised as a whole.
This smells like racism against Chinese. At this point you want it to be true so you can justify your hate towards the people.
I’m trying to have a good faith conversation and you come at me with an ad hominem attack. I would love for it to not be true, I don’t want genocide anywhere, but I believe the evidence of my eyes. I’ve read the entire UN report. Have you?
heads up, that’s a different person, not me