Because, according to the spokesperson, they have only now properly implemented their family planning law in Xinjiang (because perhaps they were being lenient previously), whereas other locations already had it implemented.
Xinjiang's birthrate of 10.69% is literally higher than a number of places in China according to the 2019 data you gave. It's literally higher than Beijing (8.24%) and only slightly lower than the national average. It seems like this statistic alone pretty much disproves the concept that there's something unusual happening. It resulted in a greater decline because the birthrate in Xinjiang was higher than in other places before policy implementation in those places ie they were being very lenient in Xinjiang (probably to help the Uighur population increase more). I'm not sure how you could look at your own data and conclude that Xinjiang is being singled out somehow. The data shows that after implementing family planning in Xinjiang, birthrate decreased to the same as most other places. People can do endless fiddling with data to make any narrative you want of course, this is something American propaganda is great at doing.
Because the 14%-15% is higher than elsewhere in China. 15% is a higher birthrate than half the provinces listed in the 2018 data so its obvious that it would decrease more to get to 10% than somewhere else. The quotes from the China spokesperson I gave literally explain that entirely. They implemented family planning in Xinjiang which was already implemented elsewhere. I'm not sure why you're so obsessed with "national birthrate decline average versus Xinjiang birthrate decline", that's a very cherrypicked statistic.
The Shandong drop is literally a 4.28% decrease, or are you trying to tell me that that final 1-2% difference between that and Xinjiang proves there is a genocide ocuring? You're just trying very very hard to eek out some sort of narrative from a bunch of generic data, which is of course exactly the kind of thing propagandists love doing because it's so easy and convincing on the surface. You could generate literally any narrative you want using this kind of data. You could create some kind of "Han genocide" narrative where Han Chinese people are being mass sterilized by their government if you wanted, and it would be more convincing than this Xinjiang stuff lol. Also notice how Beijing has a ~8% birthrate. Potentially Xinjiang's birthrate is also decreasing because people there are leaving poverty and thus having fewer kids.
So you're telling me that genocide in Xinjiang rests on 32.6% versus 24.4% birthrate decline and that the difference cannot be explained by anything other than forced sterilization? This is literally just insanity. You're saying that there is nothing in the world that can change birthrate by that last 12% other than genocide? This is a good discussion because it shows that when you put narratives under a microscope, they are revealed as ridiculous. I mean at least you actually did some analysis. People like Adrian Zenz just forget a decimal place and suddenly there's a genocide. Does "statistical significance" now equate to genocide?
deleted by creator
Because, according to the spokesperson, they have only now properly implemented their family planning law in Xinjiang (because perhaps they were being lenient previously), whereas other locations already had it implemented.
deleted by creator
Xinjiang's birthrate of 10.69% is literally higher than a number of places in China according to the 2019 data you gave. It's literally higher than Beijing (8.24%) and only slightly lower than the national average. It seems like this statistic alone pretty much disproves the concept that there's something unusual happening. It resulted in a greater decline because the birthrate in Xinjiang was higher than in other places before policy implementation in those places ie they were being very lenient in Xinjiang (probably to help the Uighur population increase more). I'm not sure how you could look at your own data and conclude that Xinjiang is being singled out somehow. The data shows that after implementing family planning in Xinjiang, birthrate decreased to the same as most other places. People can do endless fiddling with data to make any narrative you want of course, this is something American propaganda is great at doing.
deleted by creator
Because the 14%-15% is higher than elsewhere in China. 15% is a higher birthrate than half the provinces listed in the 2018 data so its obvious that it would decrease more to get to 10% than somewhere else. The quotes from the China spokesperson I gave literally explain that entirely. They implemented family planning in Xinjiang which was already implemented elsewhere. I'm not sure why you're so obsessed with "national birthrate decline average versus Xinjiang birthrate decline", that's a very cherrypicked statistic.
deleted by creator
The Shandong drop is literally a 4.28% decrease, or are you trying to tell me that that final 1-2% difference between that and Xinjiang proves there is a genocide ocuring? You're just trying very very hard to eek out some sort of narrative from a bunch of generic data, which is of course exactly the kind of thing propagandists love doing because it's so easy and convincing on the surface. You could generate literally any narrative you want using this kind of data. You could create some kind of "Han genocide" narrative where Han Chinese people are being mass sterilized by their government if you wanted, and it would be more convincing than this Xinjiang stuff lol. Also notice how Beijing has a ~8% birthrate. Potentially Xinjiang's birthrate is also decreasing because people there are leaving poverty and thus having fewer kids.
deleted by creator
So you're telling me that genocide in Xinjiang rests on 32.6% versus 24.4% birthrate decline and that the difference cannot be explained by anything other than forced sterilization? This is literally just insanity. You're saying that there is nothing in the world that can change birthrate by that last 12% other than genocide? This is a good discussion because it shows that when you put narratives under a microscope, they are revealed as ridiculous. I mean at least you actually did some analysis. People like Adrian Zenz just forget a decimal place and suddenly there's a genocide. Does "statistical significance" now equate to genocide?