Number of transexual men in Wisconsin
Executive summary
Official, disaggregated counts of “transexual men” (commonly referred to in contemporary reporting as transgender men) in Wisconsin do not exist; public reporting provides only broad state estimates of transgender and nonbinary populations, not a reliable count of transgender men specifically [1] [2]. The most frequently cited range for Wisconsin’s combined transgender and nonbinary population is roughly 34,800–69,600, while national and multi‑state surveys estimate that around half a percent to 0.6% of adults identify as transgender — figures that illuminate scale but not the precise number of transgender men in the state [1] [2].
1. What the available estimates actually measure and why that matters
The largest state‑focused estimate cited in the reporting is a range — 34,800 to 69,600 people — describing Wisconsin’s transgender and nonbinary community as a whole; that figure comes from a statewide survey and analysis reported by FORGE and summarized by the University of Wisconsin’s Inclusive Excellence coverage, and it explicitly aggregates transgender and nonbinary identities rather than breaking them down by binary gender identity such as “trans men” [1]. National research from the Williams Institute offers a complementary lens by estimating that roughly 0.52–0.6% of adults in certain states identify as transgender, which is useful for prevalence modeling but likewise does not supply a state breakdown that isolates transgender men in Wisconsin alone [2].
2. Why precise counts of “transsexual men” are unavailable in public data
State agencies and major surveys typically collect data about gender identity in ways that prioritize overall transgender prevalence or group transgender people with nonbinary respondents; official Wisconsin health and social services pages discuss LGBT health and demographics but do not publish a validated headcount of transgender men by sex assigned at birth or current identity [3] [4]. The 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey produced Wisconsin‑specific responses (n=541), supplying detailed qualitative and weighted percentage data about experiences but not a definitive population tally of transgender men statewide [5]. Reporting and advocacy organizations therefore rely on statistical modeling and sample‑based extrapolation rather than a census‑style enumeration [2] [1].
3. Sources, methodologies and their implicit biases
Estimates from FORGE and academic groups rely on survey samples, weighting, and modeling that can undercount people who avoid disclosure due to stigma or legal risk; the Williams Institute’s work aggregates BRFSS and other data to model transgender prevalence, but its state estimates are sensitive to survey design and the years sampled [2] [1]. Advocacy groups and state‑level organizations such as Fair Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Department of Health Services provide context, services, and policy advocacy that can influence both who responds to surveys and how identities are recorded, a dynamic researchers must acknowledge when turning prevalence estimates into policy or resource projections [6] [3].
4. Practical answer based on best available reporting
There is no authoritative public count of “transexual men” in Wisconsin; the best available, cited estimate for the combined transgender and nonbinary population in the state is between roughly 34,800 and 69,600 people [1], and broader modeling places transgender adults in the low‑single‑digit percentages of state populations (around 0.52–0.6% in comparable state samples) [2]. Any attempt to state a single number of transgender men in Wisconsin would require additional primary data collection or disclosure of the state’s gender‑identity breakdowns that the cited reports do not provide [5] [4].
5. What’s needed for a more precise count and why stakeholders disagree
A reliable count of transgender men would need systematic, representative survey questions about current gender identity and sex assigned at birth, transparent weighting and disclosure of nonresponse bias, and protections to encourage participation — steps the Wisconsin data ecosystem and national survey designers have advanced but not fully standardized, which explains why academic, advocacy, and government sources offer ranges and modeled percentages rather than definitive headcounts [2] [3]. Policymakers, health systems, and advocates debate investment in such measurement because better counts can shift resource allocation, legal protections, and public attention — outcomes with clear political and social implications reflected in state advocacy and legal reporting [6] [7].