Yes of course, that’s why I said it was important. But this table is about gender disparities in specific reasons for admittance. If the ratio can’t possibly be anything but 100%, what does that tell me about anything other than the self-evidently obvious?
You might as well tell me water is wet or the sky blue. Very true and both those facts are important, but neither is exactly new or surprising information.
I suppose it tells you that there is no male equivalent. I do think it’s interesting that there are so many fewer types of admission skewed toward women that fit the criteria of being skewed by 80% or more, especially when you consider the prominence of pregnancy related types.
I do also think it would be more interesting to see something like the top 15 admission types for men and top 15 for women without the 80% threshold requirement to get a wider spread of women-skewed admissions.
Yes of course, that’s why I said it was important. But this table is about gender disparities in specific reasons for admittance. If the ratio can’t possibly be anything but 100%, what does that tell me about anything other than the self-evidently obvious?
You might as well tell me water is wet or the sky blue. Very true and both those facts are important, but neither is exactly new or surprising information.
The chart does include total admissions for each. Category, so you can compare the numbers across categories, I guess.
I suppose it tells you that there is no male equivalent. I do think it’s interesting that there are so many fewer types of admission skewed toward women that fit the criteria of being skewed by 80% or more, especially when you consider the prominence of pregnancy related types.
I do also think it would be more interesting to see something like the top 15 admission types for men and top 15 for women without the 80% threshold requirement to get a wider spread of women-skewed admissions.
I guess it depends on what the chart is made to convey