this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2025
476 points (97.4% liked)

Data is Beautiful

6982 readers
2 users here now

A place to share and discuss visual representations of data: Graphs, charts, maps, etc.

DataIsBeautiful is for visualizations that effectively convey information. Aesthetics are an important part of information visualization, but pretty pictures are not the sole aim of this subreddit.

A place to share and discuss visual representations of data: Graphs, charts, maps, etc.

  A post must be (or contain) a qualifying data visualization.

  Directly link to the original source article of the visualization
    Original source article doesn't mean the original source image. Link to the full page of the source article as a link-type submission.
    If you made the visualization yourself, tag it as [OC]

  [OC] posts must state the data source(s) and tool(s) used in the first top-level comment on their submission.

  DO NOT claim "[OC]" for diagrams that are not yours.

  All diagrams must have at least one computer generated element.

  No reposts of popular posts within 1 month.

  Post titles must describe the data plainly without using sensationalized headlines. Clickbait posts will be removed.

  Posts involving American Politics, or contentious topics in American media, are permissible only on Thursdays (ET).

  Posts involving Personal Data are permissible only on Mondays (ET).

Please read through our FAQ if you are new to posting on DataIsBeautiful. Commenting Rules

Don't be intentionally rude, ever.

Comments should be constructive and related to the visual presented. Special attention is given to root-level comments.

Short comments and low effort replies are automatically removed.

Hate Speech and dogwhistling are not tolerated and will result in an immediate ban.

Personal attacks and rabble-rousing will be removed.

Moderators reserve discretion when issuing bans for inappropriate comments. Bans are also subject to you forfeiting all of your comments in this community.

Originally r/DataisBeautiful

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I disagree. It does show the contrast of what most women deal with when compared directly to the male category. And while pregnancy is specific to female (at birth), it is culturally significant because it is so prevalent.

[–] xxce2AAb@feddit.dk 74 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] jaycifer@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] Hadriscus@jlai.lu 7 points 1 week ago

I guess it depends on what the chart is made to convey

[–] kuberoot@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 week ago

The chart does include total admissions for each. Category, so you can compare the numbers across categories, I guess.

[–] JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It doesn't compare directly to the male category because there is no male category listed.

Quite a bit of interesting information on display to be sure, but with 20% of the chart displaying information that excludes one of the two things being compared, it's not a good representation of what the title suggests.

On a chart showing male female disparity for types of cancer, ovarian and testicular would be just as irrelevant as the bottom fifth of this admissions chart.

[–] Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I am a bit confused. Do you mean they purposely grouped stuff to make it seem like a bigger issue than the cancers you mention?

[–] JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

In that last sentence of my comment, I was referring to a hypothetical cancer chart, as a comparison to the chart of this post and the inherent uselessness of including information that cannot be experienced by everyone.