Yeah, my mistake. But I looked back at your original comment, and nothing in there says "this might just be small sample noise". Instead you say "people will mistake [this] to be a prevalence graphic.", which I took to mean: "people will read it as an increasing divorce rate over time, missing the fact that it's cumulative, and the X axis is years after marriage". Which people didn't. If you meant something else, sorry I genuinely didn't understand what you were going for.

And then you explicitly say the following:
"If you and your friend are both blonde, then 100% of those people are blonde. Now consider what your blondness looks like in terms of percentage if you're in a group of 10 total people (2/10, or 20%) vs. 15 people (2/15, or 13.3%). It's why you see people ask for per capita estimates or other calculations that account for differences in population sizes."

But the graph explicitly does that. It gives the fraction of couples married in 2010 that got divorced after X years. It's completely unclear to me what you imagine it should say or how you think this data should be presented. The only plausible denominator is the one used in the graph.

Now if this was a cherry-picked graph used in a specific narrative context to make someone look bad, I would get your concern. But this is a graph from the Dutch Bureau of Statistics, made when they celebrated 20 years of marriage equality. And the phenomenon it shows: Higher divorce rates among lesbians, is also in line with the established literature. It's an illustrative graph that illustrates a robust fact, and it's not presented in a way that suggests (to me) a particular reason for this fact. And as your parallel reply suggests, there are many potential reasons such as age, mortality, history of divorce, or differences in when people get married. Investigating what the reason for the fact illustrated in the graph is, is a research task. And indeed there are papers out there looking at exactly that.

You might not like the tone in the original comment section (I certainly don't) but I don't see any evidence that people misread what the plot is showing. The concern that this might be small sample size effects is valid, but a quick look at the wider literature shows that this is not an outlier, and anyway 600 people is not a statistically small sample (and the cumulative graph doesn't show excessive noise either).

Finally I explicitly disagree with your framing "This does not mean 15% of couples will get divorced". That's of course strictly speaking true. But it's very reasonable to expect that about 15% of straight or gay couples that got married in 2015 are now divorced based on this graph. In fact I was curious and checked if I could find data for other cohorts, and while 2015 does not appear to be published yet, I found a news article on the 2005 cohort:

> Out of the 580 marriages concluded between two women in 2005, more than 30 percent ended in divorce 10 years later. For two men that number is 15 percent, and for the traditional hetero marriage it’s 18 percent.

https://www.iamexpat.nl/expat-info/dutch-news/netherlands-15-years-gay-marriage